The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2025 (90 FR 47251). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0046, dated February 19, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0046) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0046. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-3425.

The FAA received a comment from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from an anonymous commenter and the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance. The anonymous comment is outside the scope of this AD. The following presents the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance's comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide its justification for finding good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures, convert this action to an NPRM, or reopen the comment period and defer compliance enforcement. The commenter asserted the FAA has not adequately justified use of the good cause exemption.

The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance stated that the FAA's current practices for IBR frequently fail to meet the legal and regulatory standards for reasonable availability. The commenter requested that the FAA make IBR material available and free to the public during the comment period. The commenter asserted that this AD incorporates by reference manufacturer service information and the EASA AD.

The FAA clarifies that this AD incorporates by reference EASA AD 2025-0046, not the manufacturer service information referenced in that EASA AD. The FAA posted EASA AD 2025-0046 to the AD docket when the NPRM was published in the Federal Register . The material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0046 may only be posted before the final rule's publication if it is already publicly available or if there is written consent from the owner of that material. Additionally, the FAA provided notice in the NPRM that the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0046 will be available in the AD docket after this AD is published. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the AD to comply with the PRA if reporting is required or remove any reporting provisions until PRA requirements are satisfied. If reporting is not required, the commenter requested the FAA clarify that in the AD.

The FAA notes this AD does not require reporting. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide the factual basis for its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification that the AD will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The FAA provides the following clarification. The RFA of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

This AD will affect 6 domestic entities, of which 5 are small entities. The table below displays the industries of the small entities, their average annual revenue, and the AD's estimated cost burden relative to average annual revenue.

While the FAA has determined that this final AD affects a substantial number of small entities, the compliance cost of the AD relative to each small entity's annual revenue is minimal. The FAA estimates the total cost per affected entity to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour), which is 0.189% of the average small entity's annual revenue. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the FAA certifies this AD will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA add to the AD docket the methodology and assumptions supporting the estimated cost of the proposed AD and reopen the comment period for public input on the additional cost information. The commenter stated that the FAA should also provide the per airplane labor and parts cost, any assumed downtime or out-of-service impacts, and aggregate costs.

In the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, the FAA disclosed the number of airplanes affected on the U.S. registry, estimated number of work hours provided by the manufacturer, and the aggregate costs. The FAA did not disclose an estimated parts cost since this AD does not require any parts. Additionally, the FAA considered the impact that this AD will have on affected operators and determined this AD will not trigger any downtime costs because revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, is an administrative action that can be performed without impacting operations. Since the FAA has assessed and disclosed the total known costs of the AD requirements in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, and the commenter did not provide additional cost data for the FAA to consider in its cost analysis, it is not necessary to reopen the comment period or provide additional information in the AD docket. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2025-0046 specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 32 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A320-251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2025 (90 FR 52570). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0065, dated March 27, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0065) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states a deviation to the manufacturing process was detected during a review of the cold working process in the assembly line. This deviation could adversely affect the fatigue life of the angle fitting connection to side panel skin between FR 35 and FR 36 at stringer 30 on both LH and RH sides. This could lead to crack initiation and propagation, which could possibly result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the fastener holes to ensure they are the nominal diameter and applicable corrective actions, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0065. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-5028.

The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide its justification for finding good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures, or convert this action to an NPRM with an appropriate comment period and defer non-urgent requirements. The commenter asserted the FAA has not adequately justified use of the good cause exemption to bypass notice and comment and the 30-day delayed effective date.

The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA make IBR material available and free to the public during the comment period. The commenter stated that this AD appears to incorporate by reference manufacturer service information.

The FAA notes that this AD incorporates by reference EASA AD 2025-0065, not the manufacturer service information referenced in that EASA AD. The FAA posted EASA AD 2025-0065 to the AD docket when the NPRM was published in the Federal Register . The material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0065 may only be posted before the final rule's publication if it is already publicly available or if there is written consent from the owner of that material. Additionally, the FAA provided notice in the NPRM that the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0065 will be available in the AD docket after this AD is published. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the AD to comply with the PRA if reporting is required or remove any reporting provisions until PRA requirements are satisfied. If reporting is not required, the commenter requested the FAA clarify that in the AD.

The FAA notes paragraph (i) of this AD specifies that this AD does not require reporting. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide the factual basis for its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification that the AD will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The FAA provides the following clarification. The RFA of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

This AD will affect two domestic entities, none of which are small business entities. While the FAA has determined that this final AD will not affect any small entities, FAA estimates the total cost per affected airplane to be $2,295 (27 work-hours × $85 per work-hour). Because the FAA does not find a cost burden to small business entities, as provided in section 605(b), the FAA certifies this AD will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA add to the AD docket the methodology and assumptions supporting the estimated cost of the proposed AD and reopen the comment period for public input on the additional cost information. The commenter stated that, in addition to labor and parts cost, the FAA's cost analysis should include downtime and operational impacts and disclose the methodology and data sources.

The FAA recognizes that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur indirect costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in an AD typically describes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by an AD, which does not include indirect costs since the FAA lacks data on those costs and they vary significantly among operators. The number of work hours necessary to do the required actions of an AD is provided by the manufacturer. This number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by an AD. The cost of parts or special tools, if necessary, to complete the actions required by an AD is also provided by the manufacturer. Further, when the FAA is informed that the manufacturer may cover some or all of the estimated costs of an AD under warranty, the FAA indicates that in the AD.

In the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, the FAA disclosed the number of airplanes affected on the U.S. registry, estimated number of work hours provided by the manufacturer, and the aggregate costs. The FAA did not disclose an estimated parts cost since this AD does not require any parts. Additionally, the FAA considered the impact that this AD will have on affected operators and determined this AD will not trigger any downtime costs because the requirements of this AD can be performed during regularly scheduled maintenance. Since the FAA has assessed and disclosed the total known costs of the AD requirements in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, and the commenter did not provide additional cost data for the FAA to consider in its cost analysis, it is not necessary to reopen the comment period or provide additional information in the AD docket. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0065, which specifies procedures for special detailed inspections of the holes on the angle fitting connection to the side panel skin between FR 35 and FR 36 at stringer 30 on both the LH and RH sides for discrepancies (fastener holes not in nominal condition) and applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions include a rototest inspection of the affected holes for cracking, repair, and contacting the manufacturer for additional instructions.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 90 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2025 (90 FR 44337). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2025-09, dated February 24, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-09) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states that titanium fasteners (part number (P/N) B0206003GD) had been incorrectly installed in the butt strap at the outer wing box lower skin to center wing box interface in lieu of the correct nickel alloy fasteners (P/N B0206033GD). The use of titanium fasteners could result in a reduction in joint strength, and the risk of a fuel leak if the fastener fails and falls free from the joint. This condition, if not corrected, could cause damage to and loss of principal structure and fatigue critical structure.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require the identification of fasteners installed in the butt strap at the outer wing box lower skin to center wing box interface, and applicable on-condition actions, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-09. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-2543.

The FAA received a comment from an anonymous commenter who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from Delta Air Lines (Delta) and the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to allow use of an existing, approved Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (ACLP) disposition instead of contacting ACLP for an approved disposition via the instructions in the service information referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-09. Delta noted that ACLP is changing the contact method specified in the service information, so operators may need to request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to use an alternative contact method. Delta also noted that ACLP has already issued two Generic Repair Engineering Orders (GREOs) to address discrepant fasteners found during the inspection, and that the GREOs meet the provisions of paragraph (j)(2) of the proposed AD for obtaining an approved disposition.

The FAA agrees that operators may use existing repair instructions, including GREOs, for compliance with this AD provided the repair instructions were approved under the provisions of paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. No change to this AD is necessary in regard to that part of Delta's comment.

The FAA also agrees with removing the requirement to obtain an approved disposition in accordance with the contact method specified in the service information referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-09 and has added a new exception in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD accordingly. The FAA notes that under paragraph (j)(2) of this AD operators must contact the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or ACLP's Transport Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO) to obtain an approved disposition for any requirement in this AD to obtain instructions from a manufacturer.

Delta requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD to allow the required inspection to be accomplished within 11,400 total flight cycles, 22,800 total flight hours, or 500 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, instead of performing the inspections within 500 flight cycles from the effective date of the AD or before accumulating 10,000 total flight cycles, whichever occurs later. Delta stated that ACLP has already issued two approved GREOs to address discrepant fasteners found during the inspection, and that one of the GREOs authorizes continued flight with the discrepant fasteners up to 11,400 total flight cycles or 22,800 total flight hours, whichever occurs first. Delta asserted that if replacement of the discrepant fasteners can be deferred to those later thresholds, then deferring the inspection to the same thresholds provides an acceptable level of safety.

The FAA disagrees with extending the compliance time for performing the inspection to determine if serviceable fasteners are installed. Transport Canada, as the state of design authority for these airplanes, analyzed the data, considered the recommendations of the manufacturers, and determined that the inspection must be accomplished before accumulating 10,000 total flight cycles or within 500 flight cycles from the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later; and the FAA concurs with Transport Canada's determination. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide its justification for finding good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures and the 30-day delayed effective date, or convert this action to an NPRM with a 30-day comment period. The commenter asserted the FAA has not adequately justified use of the good cause exemption to bypass notice and comment and the 30-day delayed effective date.

The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the AD to comply with the PRA if reporting is required or remove any reporting provisions until PRA requirements are satisfied. If reporting is not required, the commenter requested the FAA clarify that in the AD.

The FAA notes paragraph (i) of this AD specifies that this AD does not require reporting. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide the factual basis for its certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) that the AD will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that identifies potentially affected small entities and considers alternatives that minimize impact.

The FAA provides the following clarification. The RFA of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The FAA identified three air carriers that will be affected by this AD. Based on the Small Business Administration size standard, all three entities are large businesses:

If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b) and based on the foregoing, the head of the FAA certifies that this AD will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA augment the economic analysis to include downtime and scheduled disruption costs, parts availability constraints, and cumulative fleet impacts, and adjust the compliance times to align with scheduled maintenance intervals and broaden AMOC pathways accordingly. The commenter stated that the FAA should also provide the per airplane and fleet costs, including labor hours, parts, engineering, software loads, and special tools.

The FAA recognizes that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur indirect costs (such as engineering work or loss of revenue due to airplane downtime, scheduled disruptions, parts availability constraints, etc.) in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in an AD typically describes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by an AD, which does not include indirect costs since the FAA lacks data on those costs and they vary significantly among operators. Additionally, the FAA determined that there may be no downtime costs for some of the affected operators because the compliance times required by this AD would allow the required inspection to be performed during regularly scheduled maintenance. Further, special tools and software are not necessary to complete the actions required by this AD.

In the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, the FAA disclosed the number of affected airplanes on the U.S. registry, estimated number of work hours and parts costs provided by the manufacturer, and the fleet cost. Since the FAA has assessed and disclosed the total known costs of the AD requirements in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, and the commenter did not provide additional cost data for the FAA to consider in its cost analysis, it is not necessary to provide additional information in the AD docket.

Further, in developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA considered the compliance time in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-09, the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required actions within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2025-09, which specifies procedures for a detailed inspection to identify the part markings on the head of the fasteners, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include replacing non-serviceable fasteners (those not identified as HST54, HST154, HST254, B0201074, B0201074 with oversize code X, or B0201074 with oversize code Y). For non-serviceable fasteners, the replacement includes a detailed inspection to make sure that the fastener heads are not damaged; the fastener heads are installed within requirements; and there are no signs of loose fasteners, fasteners that rotated, or fasteners that moved.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 71 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2025 (90 FR 9526). The NPRM was prompted by Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21, dated June 6, 2024 (Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states that ECS ducts, located on forward and aft cargo compartment ceiling panels, having part numbers D761189-105, D761189-501, and D762232-509, have been manufactured using material APF1180-7781, which replaced discontinued legacy material Solvay L591PG-7781. The material change to APF1180-7781 was done without changing the ECS duct part number. Subsequent certification testing of the ECS ducts made using material APF1180-7781 failed flammability test requirements. These noncompliant ECS ducts may have been installed on certain affected airplanes during production. Noncompliant ECS ducts could result in the inability to contain a fire within the cargo compartment, which could result in an uncontrolled fire.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the affected ECS ducts and, as applicable, installing a fire-resistant sleeve assembly over any non-compliant ECS duct, and to prohibit the installation of ECS ducts as replacement parts under certain conditions, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21.

The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The SNPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2025 (90 FR 46098). The SNPRM was prompted by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-10, dated February 27, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-10) (also referred to as the MCAI), which superseded Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21. Transport Canada AD CF-2025-10 states that since Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21 was issued, Airbus Canada revised the instructions in their service information to include a requirement to re-identify the ceiling panel liners to ensure configuration control. In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting affected ECS ducts, installing a fire-resistant sleeve assembly over any non-compliant ECS duct as applicable, and re-identifying the ceiling panel liners in affected cargo compartments, and to prohibit the installation of ECS ducts as replacement parts under certain conditions, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-10. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0199.

The FAA received a comment from Air Line Pilot Association, International (ALPA) who supported the SNPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance and JetBlue. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

JetBlue requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to specify, where Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (ACLP) Service Bulletin BD500-501003, Issue 001, dated December 21, 2023 (Issue 001 of the ACLP Service Bulletin); or ACLP Service Bulletin BD500-501003, Issue 002, dated November 15, 2024 (Issue 002 of the ACLP Service Bulletin); is used to accomplish Part I of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-10 before the effective date the AD, only the “affected and repaired” ceiling panel liners in the cargo compartments must be re-identified using ACLP Service Bulletin BD500-501003, Issue 003, dated December 18, 2024 (Issue 003 of the ACLP Service Bulletin), or later revisions. JetBlue added, if the FAA determines unaffected ducts or liners must also be re-identified, then JetBlue requests that the unaffected parts be re-identified at the next scheduled heavy maintenance visit instead of before further flight after the inspection. JetBlue noted that Issue 001 of the ACLP Service Bulletin does not specify to re-identify the relevant ECS ducts or ceiling panel liners, for airplanes determined to not be affected. JetBlue stated if ECS ducts or ceiling panel liners are found to be affected, a change to the part number is required because repairs and modification are necessary to comply with the applicable fireproofing requirements, and the repairs are considered major changes to ensure continued compliance with the type certificate. JetBlue further stated, if the ECS ducts and ceiling panel liners are determined to not be affected, no modification or repair is performed, and the part re-identification is not necessary because the inspection and verification are considered minor, and the type certificate remains valid with amendment.

The FAA disagrees with both requests. The FAA notes that although Issue 001 of the ACLP Service Bulletin does not specify re-identifying unaffected ceiling panel liners, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-10 specifies to accomplish the actions in Part I of the Transport Canada using Issue 003 of the ACLP Service Bulletin, which does require re-identifying all ceiling panel liners regardless of findings. Re-identifying the ceiling panel lining provides assurance that an affected ECS duct has been inspected in compliance with this AD. However, the FAA will consider requests for an alternative method of compliance or extension of the compliance time, under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide its justification for finding good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures, or convert this action to an NPRM to extend the comment period. The commenter asserted the FAA has not adequately justified use of the good cause exemption.

The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the AD to comply with the PRA if reporting is required or remove any reporting provisions until PRA requirements are satisfied. If reporting is not required, the commenter requested the FAA clarify that in the AD.

The FAA notes paragraph (i) of this AD specifies that this AD does not require reporting. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance stated that the FAA's current practices for IBR frequently fail to meet the legal and regulatory standards for reasonable availability. The commenter called on the FAA to guarantee that all IBR materials are easily and freely accessible to the public and affected parties for both commenting and compliance purposes. The commenter also requested that this access be documented in the rulemaking record.

The FAA notes that this AD incorporates by reference Transport Canada AD CF-2025-10, not the manufacturer service information referenced in that Transport Canada AD. The FAA posted Transport Canada AD CF-2025-10 to the AD docket when the NPRM was published in the Federal Register . The material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-10 may only be posted before the final rule's publication if it is already publicly available or if there is written consent from the owner of that material. Additionally, the FAA provided notice in the NPRM that the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-10 will be available in the AD docket after this AD is published. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide the factual basis for its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification that the AD will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The FAA provides the following clarification. The RFA of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The FAA identified three air carriers and one commercial aircraft lessor that will be affected by this AD. Based on the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard, all four entities are large businesses:

If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b) and based on the foregoing, the head of the FAA certifies that this AD will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA add to the AD docket the methodology and assumptions supporting the estimated cost of the proposed AD and reopen the comment period for public input on the additional cost information. The commenter stated that the FAA should also provide the fleet size, per airplane labor and parts cost, any assumed downtime or out-of-service impacts, aggregate costs, and any assumption that the manufacturer would provide parts free of charge.

In the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, the FAA disclosed the number of airplanes affected on the U.S. registry, estimated number of work hours provided by the manufacturer, and the aggregate costs. The FAA did not disclose an estimated parts cost since this AD does not require any parts. Additionally, the FAA considered the impact that this AD will have on affected operators and determined this AD will not trigger any downtime costs because the requirements of this AD can be performed during regularly scheduled maintenance. Since the FAA has assessed and disclosed the total known costs of the AD requirements in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, and the commenter did not provide additional cost data for the FAA to consider in its cost analysis, it is not necessary to reopen the comment period or provide additional information in the AD docket. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the SNPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Transport Canada AD CF-2025-10 specifies procedures for inspecting to determine the lot numbers of affected ECS ducts, installing a fire-resistant sleeve assembly over any non-compliant ECS duct, and re-identifying the ceiling panel liners in the cargo compartments. Transport Canada AD CF-2025-10 also prohibits the installation of ECS ducts as replacement parts under certain conditions. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 200 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2024-04-06, Amendment 39-22685 (89 FR 19228, March 18, 2024) (AD 2024-04-06). AD 2024-04-06 applied to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. AD 2024-04-06 required repetitive operational checks of the gravity cross flow shut-off valve and, for certain airplanes, a one-time inspection of the motive flow fuel-feed tubes at the clamp blocks location and applicable corrective actions. The FAA issued AD 2024-04-06 to address mechanical wear damage on the motive flow fuel-feed tubes. Failure of the affected motive flow fuel-feed tubes and a subsequent failure of the gravity transfer system could lead to a fuel imbalance condition resulting in a reduction in airplane functional capabilities and increased crew workload.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2025 (90 FR 52005). The NPRM was prompted by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24, dated April 29, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 superseded Transport Canada AD CF-2022-70, dated December 21, 2022 (Transport Canada AD CF-2022-70), which corresponds to AD 2024-04-06. The MCAI states that since Transport Canada AD CF-2022-70 was issued, the manufacturer issued new service information to require replacement of the saddle clamp of the motive flow tubes, along with an inspection and rectification of the flow fuel-feed tubes.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2024-04-06 and require replacement of the saddle clamp, inspection of the motive flow fuel-feed tubes, and applicable corrective actions, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-5024.

The FAA received comments from the Airline Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from Delta Air Lines (Delta) and Citizens Rulemaking Alliance. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Delta requested that the FAA revise the exception in paragraph (h)(5) of the proposed AD by adding reference to Part III of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24. Delta noted, as proposed, the exception would only apply to Part II of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24. Delta stated that there is a clear coating on the area behind the saddle clamp, which makes it difficult to distinguish between actual damage and paint or coating damage. Delta concluded that revising the exception would allow operators to replace the motive flow fuel-feed tubes instead of doing rework if there is any confusion as to whether the damage is to the coating, paint, or tube.

The FAA agrees that the exception in paragraph (h)(5) of this AD applies to Parts II and III of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 and has revised that paragraph accordingly. The FAA infers that the area behind the saddle clamp as referred to by the commenter is the area of the motive flow fuel-feed tube that mates with the saddle clamp. The FAA notes that the rework referenced in paragraph (h)(5) of this AD is related to different tasks required by Parts II and III of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24. The rework under Part II is provided in Step 2.6 of Section 2 (Procedure) of Spirit Service Bulletin 500SHW-28-2109, Issue 005, dated October 2, 2023, as documented in the preamble of AD 2024-04-06, and it requires checking the motive flow fuel-feed tube for pre-load condition if the tube is found with no damage or paint damage only. The rework under Part III is provided in Step 2.7 of Section 2 (Procedure) of Spirit AeroSystems Belfast Service Bulletin 500SHW-28-2112, Issue 001, dated July 24, 2024, and it requires application of finish to the motive flow fuel-feed tube if the tube is found with paint damage only.

Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to allow the installation of new motive flow fuel-feed tubes specified in Part III of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 to be done using the service information referenced in Part II of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24, if the tube installations in Parts II and III are done concurrently. Delta noted that the service information referenced in Part III of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 specifies doing the tube installation per an airplane maintenance manual (AMM) task. Delta stated that if the actions in Parts II and III of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 are done concurrently and damage is found behind the saddle clamp and clamp block, then operators would need to follow two different instruction methods to address the damage.

The FAA disagrees with the request because an exception is not needed to address Delta's concern. The service information referenced in Part III of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 does not prescribe a specific method for installing new motive flow fuel-feed tubes. Instead that service information refers to a maintenance manual as an acceptable procedure for doing the installation. Therefore, if the actions in Parts II and Part III of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 are done concurrently and new motive flow fuel-feed tubes must be installed per Parts II and III, then operators may comply with the tube installation specified in Part III by using the tube installation method prescribed in the service information referenced in Part II. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide its justification for finding good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures, or convert this action to an NPRM and stay enforcement for non-immediate requirements. The commenter asserted the FAA's use of the good cause exemption appears insufficiently supported.

The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance stated that the FAA's current practices for IBR frequently fail to meet the legal and regulatory standards for reasonable availability. The commenter called on the FAA to guarantee that all IBR materials are easily and freely accessible to the public and affected parties for both commenting and compliance purposes. The commenter also requested that this access be documented in the rulemaking record.

The FAA notes that this AD incorporates by reference Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24, not the manufacturer service information referenced in that Transport Canada AD. The FAA posted Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 to the AD docket when the NPRM was published in the Federal Register . The material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 may only be posted before the final rule's publication if it is already publicly available or if there is written consent from the owner of that material. Additionally, the FAA provided notice in the NPRM that the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 will be available in the AD docket after this AD is published. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the AD to comply with the PRA if reporting is required or remove any reporting provisions until PRA requirements are satisfied. If reporting is not required, the commenter requested the FAA clarify that in the AD.

The FAA notes paragraph (i) of this AD specifies that this AD does not require reporting. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The commenter requested that the FAA certify under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) that the AD will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis if it cannot be certified.

The FAA provides the following clarification. The RFA of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The FAA identified three air carriers that will be affected by this AD. Based on the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard, all three entities are large businesses:

If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b) and based on the foregoing, the head of the FAA certifies that this AD will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA augment the rulemaking docket with the cost methodology and assumptions, including the labor rate, parts availability, and expected downtime.

In the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, the FAA disclosed the number of affected airplanes on the U.S. registry, estimated number of work hours and parts cost provided by the manufacturer, and the aggregate costs. Additionally, the FAA considered the impact that this AD will have on affected operators and determined this AD will not trigger any downtime costs because the requirements of this AD can be performed during regularly scheduled maintenance. Since the FAA has assessed and disclosed the total known costs of the AD requirements in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, and the commenter did not provide additional cost data for the FAA to consider in its cost analysis, it is not necessary to reopen the comment period or provide additional information in the AD docket. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24, which specifies procedures for performing a repetitive operational check of the gravity cross flow shut-off valve and, for certain airplanes, inspecting the motive flow fuel-feed tubes for mechanical wear damage (damage includes, but is not limited to, cracks, scores, scratches, nicks, and gouges) and pre-load condition, and, based on findings, replacing the motive flow fuel-feed tube. This material also specifies procedures for replacing the saddle clamp of the motive flow fuel-feed tubes on both left and right sides, inspecting the motive flow fuel-feed tubes for damage (damage includes, but is not limited to, cracks, scores, scratches, nicks, and gouges) and, based on findings, repairing or replacing the motive flow fuel-feed tube. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The preamble to AD 2024-04-06 explained that the FAA considers that AD an “interim action” and the FAA might consider further rulemaking if a final action is identified. The manufacturer has since developed additional corrective actions to address the unsafe condition. The FAA has determined that the additional corrective actions should be required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 96 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2025 (90 FR 45922). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0045, dated February 19, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0045) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0045. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-2549.

The FAA received a comment from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from the Citizens Rulemaking Alliance. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide its justification for finding good cause to bypass notice and comment procedures, or convert this action to an NPRM with a 30-day comment period and 30-day delayed effective date. The commenter asserted the FAA has not adequately justified use of the good cause exemption.

The FAA notes the comment was submitted in response to an NPRM for which the FAA provided a 45-day comment period. This final rule is effective 35 days after its publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA make IBR material available and free to the public during the comment period. The commenter asserted that this AD incorporates by reference manufacturer service information.

The FAA clarifies that this AD incorporates by reference EASA AD 2025-0045, not the manufacturer service information referenced in that EASA AD. The FAA posted EASA AD 2025-0078 to the AD docket when the NPRM was published in the Federal Register . The material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0045 may only be posted before the final rule's publication if it is already publicly available or if there is written consent from the owner of that material. Additionally, the FAA provided notice in the NPRM that the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0045 will be available in the AD docket after this AD is published. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA revise the AD to comply with the PRA if reporting is required or remove any reporting provisions until PRA requirements are satisfied. If reporting is not required, the commenter requested the FAA clarify that in the AD.

The FAA notes this AD does not require reporting. If an AD were to require reporting, the preamble of the AD would include a paragraph titled “Paperwork Reduction Act” that would provide the applicable OMB control number, required PRA statements, and the estimated time to collect the required information (burden). Any costs associated with the reporting requirement would be included in the Costs of Compliance section in the preamble of the AD. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA either provide the factual basis for its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification that the AD will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The FAA provides the following clarification. The RFA of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

This AD will affect 3 domestic entities, of which 3 are small entities. The table below displays the industries of the small entities, their average annual revenue, and the AD's estimated cost burden relative to average annual revenue.

While the FAA has determined that this final AD affects a substantial number of small entities, the compliance cost of the AD relative to each small entity's annual revenue is minimal. The FAA estimates the total cost per affected entity to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour), which is 0.11% of the average small entity's annual revenue. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the FAA certifies this AD will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance requested that the FAA add to the AD docket the methodology and assumptions supporting the estimated cost of the proposed AD and reopen the comment period for public input on the additional cost information. The commenter stated that the FAA should also provide the fleet size, per airplane labor and parts cost, any assumed downtime or out-of-service impacts, aggregate costs, and any assumption that the manufacturer would provide parts free of charge.

In the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, the FAA disclosed the number of airplanes affected on the U.S. registry, estimated number of work hours provided by the manufacturer, and the aggregate costs. The FAA did not disclose an estimated parts cost since this AD does not require any parts. Additionally, the FAA considered the impact that this AD will have on affected operators and determined this AD will not trigger any downtime costs because revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, is an administrative action that can be performed without impacting operations. Since the FAA has assessed and disclosed the total known costs of the AD requirements in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD, and the commenter did not provide additional cost data for the FAA to consider in its cost analysis, it is not necessary to reopen the comment period or provide additional information in the AD docket. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2025-0045 specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC” or “Commission”) is a Federal-interstate compact agency charged with managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin on a regional basis without regard to political boundaries. Its members are the governors of the four basin states—Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania—and on behalf of the federal government, the North Atlantic Division Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In accordance with 18 CFR 401.43(c), on July 1 of every year, the Commission's regulatory program fees as set forth in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of that section are subject to an annual adjustment, commensurate with any increase in the annual April 12-month Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Philadelphia published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics during that year. Pursuant to 18 CFR 420.41(c), the same indexed adjustment applies to the Commission's schedule of water charges for consumptive and non-consumptive withdrawals of surface water within the basin. The referenced April 12-month CPI for 2026 showed an increase of 4.8%. Commensurate adjustments are thus required.

This notice is made in accordance with 18 CFR 401.43(c) and 18 CFR 420.41(c), which provide that a revised fee schedule will be published in the Federal Register by July 1. The revised fees also may be obtained by contacting the Commission during business hours or by checking the Commission's website.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Delaware River Basin Commission amends parts 401 and 420 of title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

On November 2, 2015, Congress enacted the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, sec. 701 (Inflation Adjustment Act), which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as previously amended by the 1996 Debt Collection Improvement Act, to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The Inflation Adjustment Act required agencies to (1) adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rule (IFR); and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation no later than January 15 of each year.

On July 1, 2016, the Department published an IFR that established the initial catch-up adjustment for most civil penalties that the Department administers and requested comments. See 81 FR 43430 (DOL IFR). Every year thereafter, the Department has published a final rule establishing the annual adjustment for civil monetary penalties based on the October CPI-U from the prior year.

According to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, the annual inflation adjustment to civil penalties is based on BLS CPI-U data from the month of October of the prior year. Due to the October-November 2025 lapse in appropriations, BLS was unable to produce the October 2025 data. The statute does not allow for an alternative method of calculating civil penalty amounts. On April 17, 2026, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell T. Vought issued OMB memorandum M-26-11, which informed agencies of the cancellation of the penalty inflation adjustment for 2026 based on the lack of October 2025 CPI-U data. OMB instructed agencies to continue using the 2025 civil monetary penalties as applicable.

Consistent with the guidance provided in M-26-11, the Department of Labor is not making any adjustments to civil money penalties under the Inflation Adjustment Act in 2026.

In 2027, the Department will undertake a thorough review of civil penalties administered by its various components pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act and in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget.

The Coast Guard received notification that Pacific Gas and Electrical Company (PG&E) will be conducting maintenance on a PG&E facility near Humboldt Bay, CA on June 3, 2026. While maintenance is conducted at the PG&E shoreside terminal there will be potential hazards from the exposure of hazardous material. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector San Francisco has determined that hazards associated with the maintenance being conducted are a safety concern for anyone within a 100-meter radius of this PG&E facility (40°44′31″ N, 124°12′39″ W). Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Additionally, the Coast Guard was not notified of this of this event with sufficient time to solicit notice and comments prior to when this safety zone must be established on June 3, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone on June 3, 2026, from 8. a.m. through 5 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 100-meter radius of the PG&E facility, located at 1000 King Salmon Ave, Eureka, CA 95503 (40°44′31″ N, 124°12′39″ W). Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce multiple safety zones for annual events in the Captain of the Port Eastern Great Lakes Zone listed in Table 1 to 33 CFR 165.939, for events occurring in the months of June and July as listed in the DATES section above. Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Eastern Great Lakes or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may request permission from the COTP Eastern Great Lakes via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of COTP Eastern Great Lakes or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the COTP Eastern Great Lakes determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

This rule establishes a permanent security zone regulation that will be activated as necessary to protect vessels carrying CDC bound for the Port of Corpus Christi. Vessels carrying CDC within the Captain of the Port Corpus Christi Zone are potential targets of terrorist attacks, or potential launch platforms for terrorist attacks on other vessels, waterfront facilities, and adjacent population centers. In the last 2 years, the Port of Corpus Christi has seen more than 450 vessels enter or depart the port carrying CDCs, with that number projected to almost double in the next 15 years.

The Coast Guard has previously created temporary security zones for individual vessel transits, see for example 89 FR 96533, December 5, 2024. Continuing to create individual security zones will result in a significant administrative burden to the unit based on the expected number of future transits, and it will also delay public notice for individual security zone activations. Therefore, the Coast Guard is establishing this security zone to safeguard these vessels, the public, and the surrounding area from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature.

On December 23, 2025, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled, “Security Zones; Vessels Carrying Dangerous Cargo, Corpus Christi and La Quinta Ship Channels, Corpus Christi, TX.” In the NPRM (90 FR 60053) we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action.

Under section 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 46 U.S.C. 70124, the Sector Commander, Coast Guard Sector Corpus Christi has determined vessels carrying CDC within the Captain of the Port Corpus Christi Zone are potential targets of terrorist attacks, or potential launch platforms for terrorist attacks on other vessels, waterfront facilities, and adjacent population centers. The purpose of this rule is to safeguard the vessels, the public, and the surrounding area from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature.

During the comment period that ended January 22, 2026, we received no comments. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a new security zone regulation for vessels carrying CDC while transiting in the Corpus Christi and La Quinta Shipping, or when moored at a facility and loading or unloading. The rule prohibits persons and vessels from entry into the security zone during limited times when activated, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Coast Guard certifies that, although some small entities may intend to transit the security zone above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will impact a small, designated area of 500-yards around a moving vessel in the Corpus Christi or La Quinta Shipping Channels over a period of six hours or less. Most vessels will be able to move around the security zone and therefore the impediment to the movement of other vessels will be minimal. Moreover, the rule allows other vessels to seek permission from the COTP to enter the zone.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a security zone around vessels laden with CDC as they transit through the Corpus Christi or La Quinta Shipping Channels. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The IFR is organized as follows:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is amending the regulations that implement section 362 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, 42 U.S.C. 265, as amended, as part of its response to the 2026 Ebola Disease Outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Uganda, and South Sudan. Section 362 provides that if the Secretary “determines that by reason of the existence of any communicable disease in a foreign country there is serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States, and that this danger is so increased by the introduction of persons or property from such country that a suspension of the right to introduce such persons and property is required in the interest of the public health,” he has the authority, in accordance with regulations approved by the President, “to prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction of persons and property from such countries or places as he shall designate in order to avert such danger, and for such period of time as he may deem necessary for such purpose.” PHS Act 362, 42 U.S.C. 265. Pursuant to a delegation of the Secretary's authority, the CDC Director has promulgated regulations under section 362 to suspend the introduction of persons and property into the United States. Current regulations, however, provide an exception to the suspension of introduction into the United States for lawful permanent residents (LPR) (42 CFR 71.40(f))

CDC's experience with Ebola disease is that the disease is a severe and often fatal illness caused by viruses in the Ebola family. Ebola disease outbreaks occur mainly in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and can spread rapidly in communities with limited healthcare resources. The particular Ebola disease at issue in this outbreak, the Bundibugyo virus, is a rare form of Ebola first identified during an outbreak in Bundibugyo District, Uganda, in 2007. Bundibugyo virus is one of several species within the orthoebolavirus family and causes symptoms similar to other forms of Ebola, including fever, weakness, vomiting, diarrhea, and, in severe cases, hemorrhagic complications and organ failure. The disease spreads through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated materials.

The incubation period for Ebola disease caused by the Bundibugyo virus is typically between 2 and 21 days, with most people developing symptoms within 4 to 10 days after exposure. During this incubation period, infected individuals do not spread the virus until symptoms begin. Screening for Ebola disease caused by Bundibugyo virus focuses on identifying symptoms and possible exposure history, such as recent travel to affected areas or contact with infected individuals. Suspected patients are evaluated for symptoms including fever, weakness, vomiting, diarrhea, and bleeding, and laboratory confirmation is performed using specialized tests such as PCR (polymerase chain reaction) to detect the virus in blood and other body fluid samples. Health authorities also use temperature checks, contact tracing, and isolation procedures to prevent transmission.

There are currently no widely approved vaccines or specific antiviral treatments for the Bundibugyo virus that causes Ebola disease. Treatment mainly consists of supportive care, including intravenous fluids, electrolyte replacement, oxygen support, pain and fever management, and treatment of secondary infections. Early medical care significantly improves survival chances. Robust public health measures such as early detection, rapid isolation, strong infection prevention measures ( i.e., use of personal protective equipment (PPE)), and monitoring of contacts are critical to controlling outbreaks and reducing deaths. Given the complexities of global disease outbreaks, including the current Ebola disease outbreak in the DRC, Uganda and South Sudan, the logistics of trying identify cases at the numerous ports of entry (POE) of the United States (air, land, and sea), and the fact that there are no approved vaccines or specific antiviral treatments for this strain of Ebola disease, CDC needs a more efficient regulatory mechanism to exercise its section 362 authority and suspend the introduction of persons other than U.S. Citizens and U.S. Nationals who would otherwise pose a serious danger of introduction of Ebola disease into the United States.

International travel and migration play a significant role in the global transmission of infectious biological agents or their toxic products that pose risks for vulnerable populations. Travelers can serve as unwitting vectors of disease and thereby increase the risk of communicable disease transmission and of the introduction of quarantinable communicable disease into the United States. The risk increases when travelers are in congregate settings, such as carriers ( i.e., ships, aircraft, trains, and road vehicles) or terminals with shared sitting, sleeping, eating, or recreational areas, all of which are conducive to disease transmission.

The speed and far reach of global travel were factors in prior outbreaks that expanded to numerous continents. Examples include: The H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009; severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARs) coronavirus in 2003; tuberculosis; measles; Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) in 2012; Ebola Virus Disease in 2014 and 2018, and COVID-19 in 2020. All these high-consequence diseases posed significant public health risks, especially given the compressed timeframes in which the outbreaks initially occurred.

In addition, global travel has increased dramatically since prior infectious disease outbreaks. In 2025, international visitations to the U.S. totaled over 68 million; in 2020 when this regulation was amended to introduce the suspension of introduction of persons into the United States, that number totaled only 19.8 million. The dramatic increase in global travel to the United States, likely spurred by individuals having the freedom to travel again following the COVID-19 pandemic, make the availability of the most efficient and comprehensive mechanism for exercising the section 362 authority all the more important to the protection of the public health going forward.

Presently, there is a confirmed ongoing outbreak of Ebola disease caused by the Bundibugyo virus in DRC and Uganda. The current outbreak is centered in eastern DRC's Ituri Province, where hundreds of suspected cases and dozens of deaths have been reported. Conflict, weak health infrastructure, and relatively porous borders in the region are complicating containment efforts.

Uganda has confirmed imported cases linked to travel from DRC, including one case detected in Kampala, imported from a traveler from DRC. Ugandan authorities have activated emergency response systems, expanded surveillance, and strengthened screening at borders and health facilities. Uganda has significant prior experience managing Ebola disease outbreaks, including the Sudan virus strain outbreak in 2025, which improved preparedness and response capacity.

South Sudan has not reported confirmed cases in the current outbreak, but it is considered at high risk because of its close border with affected areas in eastern DRC and Uganda, limited healthcare infrastructure, and cross-border population movement. Regional and international agencies, including WHO and Africa CDC, are supporting preparedness measures, surveillance, and coordination among the three countries to prevent wider spread. Despite these efforts there is a risk that the outbreak could spread beyond these three countries, and ultimately reach the United States, through international travel by infected individuals during the virus's incubation period, when they have been exposed but are not yet showing symptoms. Travelers moving between affected countries and major international transit hubs could unknowingly carry the virus before becoming ill.

DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan are connected to the global aviation network through a series of regional and international transit hubs that provide pathways into the United States. Travelers departing from outbreak-affected regions frequently transit through densely populated metropolitan airports such as Addis Ababa Bole International Airport (ADD), Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (NBO) in Nairobi, Hamad International Airport (DOH) in Doha, Dubai International Airport (DXB), and Istanbul Airport (IST), all of which maintain extensive passenger connectivity to major U.S. gateway airports including John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD), and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). These international transportation corridors support continuous movement of travelers between Central and East Africa and major U.S. metropolitan centers, increasing the likelihood that individuals exposed to Ebola virus disease could enter the United States before symptoms become apparent. Complex multi-leg itineraries and the rapid pace of international travel create substantial challenges for identifying potentially infected travelers before arrival.

The risk of Bundibugyo virus disease introduction into the United States is heightened by the virus's incubation period, which can extend up to 21 days, allowing infected individuals to travel internationally while asymptomatic and therefore unlikely to be detected through routine symptom-based screening measures. A traveler infected in outbreak regions of DRC and Uganda may transit through multiple countries and major international airports before developing fever or other clinical signs of disease. Upon arrival in major U.S. metropolitan areas, travelers who become symptomatic could interact with crowded airport environments, domestic transportation systems, healthcare facilities, hotels, or community settings prior to diagnosis and isolation. Because modern aviation networks enable rapid movement from outbreak zones to the United States within one to two days, even a limited number of infected travelers could create significant public health response demands, particularly if exposure events occur in high-density urban environments. The interconnected nature of global air travel therefore presents a credible pathway for Bundibugyo virus disease importation into the United States, underscoring the importance of aggressive surveillance, traveler monitoring, airport screening, healthcare preparedness, and rapid containment capabilities.

Travelers utilizing air transit pathways originating in or passing through DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan include non-U.S. citizens, foreign contract workers, humanitarian personnel, business travelers, students, refugees, and third-country nationals moving through international aviation hubs in Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. Many travelers entering U.S.-bound itineraries from these pathways may do so under temporary visas, refugee or asylum processing mechanisms, international organizational travel, or multi country itineraries that obscure their original point of departure. As a result, public health screening and border security systems face heightened operational complexity in identifying travelers with recent exposure histories linked to Ebola-affected regions, particularly when travelers originate from or transit through multiple jurisdictions prior to arrival at major U.S. metropolitan airports.

On May 18, 2026, the Director General of WHO declared that the outbreak of Ebola Disease caused by the Bundibugyo virus is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern under the International Health Regulations. Also on May 18, 2026, the CDC issued an initial order suspending the entry of covered aliens into the United States pursuant to section 362 (42 U.S.C. 265) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, and 42 CFR part 71.40.

Restricting entry of LPRs, in addition to other non-U.S. citizens, who originate from or have recently traveled through DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan would reduce the volume of higher-risk international arrivals requiring public health monitoring and follow-up. Limiting the number of potentially exposed travelers entering through major U.S. ports of entry, federal, state, and local public health authorities could concentrate finite surveillance, screening, contact tracing, quarantine management, and medical monitoring resources on returning U.S. citizens. Such an approach would reduce operational strain on airport screening systems, CDC quarantine stations, public health laboratories, and healthcare facilities, many of whom may not have experience treating highly pathogenic diseases, responsible for evaluating suspected Bundibugyo virus disease cases. It would also improve the ability of authorities to conduct detailed exposure assessments, ensure compliance with monitoring requirements during the 21-day incubation period, rapidly identify symptomatic individuals, and allocate specialized isolation and treatment capacity more effectively. In the context of a rapidly evolving Bundibugyo virus disease outbreak with significant international mobility, prioritizing surveillance efforts toward a smaller and more traceable traveler population would strengthen the overall effectiveness of U.S. disease containment and border health security operations.

Travelers Health Notices (THNs) and Health Alert Network notices (HANs) have also been issued by the CDC with respect to travel from or through the affected countries.

This outbreak continues to highlight why CDC needs an efficient and comprehensive regulatory mechanism to suspend the introduction of all persons who would otherwise increase the serious danger of the introduction of a quarantinable communicable disease into the United States. Section 362 currently provides the authority to prohibit the “introduction” of persons into the United States, while the implementing regulations found at 42 CFR part 71.40 provide exceptions to that authority. Despite continued attempts to mitigate and end the outbreak, cases and deaths have rapidly propagated and multiplied, crossing international borders with ease. In the immediate term, given what is currently known about the outbreak, persons traveling from other foreign countries and jurisdictions, including LPRs, may increase the opportunity for introduction of Ebola disease into the United States.

At this time, there is no approved vaccine or therapeutic for the Bundibugyo virus causing the current outbreak of Ebola disease. The Secretary acting through the CDC Director or other delegate needs a robust, efficient, and comprehensive mechanism for exercising its authority under section 362 and other applicable authorities to suspend the introduction of persons into the United States, including LPRs, should the public health require it. In issuing orders pursuant to this interim final rule, the Secretary acting through the CDC Director or other delegate would coordinate with the Secretary of State in order to ensure compliance with the international legal obligations of the United States and to take due account of U.S. national and security interests. CDC would also coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security to operationalize and implement the order.

The suspension authority is also critical to CDC because there is always a risk of another emerging, or re-emerging, quarantinable communicable disease that may harm the American public. Currently, CDC is responding to multiple outbreaks of quarantinable communicable disease: Andes virus, a strain of Hantavirus, and now the Ebola disease. Another continuous risk of quarantinable communicable disease comes in the form of pandemic influenza (as opposed to seasonal influenza), which occurs when a novel, or new, influenza virus strain spreads over a wide geographic area and affects an exceptionally high proportion of the population. In such circumstances, the strain of virus is new, there is usually no available vaccine, and humans do not typically have immunity to the virus, often resulting in a more severe illness. The severity and unpredictable nature of an influenza pandemic require public health systems to prepare constantly for the next occurrence. Whenever a new strain of influenza virus appears, or a major change to a preexisting virus occurs, individuals may have little or no immunity, which can lead to a pandemic when the virus passes easily from human to human and causes serious illness or death. The most recent influenza pandemics include H1N1 in 2009-2010, the 1968-1969 Hong Kong Flu, the 1957-1958 Asian Flu, and the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu.

It is difficult to predict the impact that another emerging, or re-emerging, quarantinable communicable disease would have on the U.S. public health system. The 2009 H1N1 pandemic caused between 100,000 and 600,000 deaths worldwide, while the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu was estimated to have caused over 50 million deaths worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic from 2020-2023 caused approximately 7.11 million deaths world-wide, disrupted the global economy, the ability to live everyday life normally, separated families and friends for, in some cases, several years, and caused untold harm to individual mental health. Although advances in health care quality have greatly improved, the dramatic increases in global mobility in the 21st century have increased the rate at which a communicable disease can spread. Modern pandemics, spread through international travel, can engulf the world in three months or less. Moreover, pandemics can last from 12 to 18 months (or longer in the case of COVID-19) and are not considered one-time events.

The introduction of another emerging, or re-emerging, quarantinable communicable disease into the United States is always a risk. The PHS Act section 362 suspension authority has proven critical to prior CDC efforts, as well as those of its Federal, State, and local partners to contain or mitigate public health risks. CDC expects to mitigate the risk in the future by issuing a Final Rule, after considering comments, to implement a permanent regulatory structure regarding the potential suspension of introduction of persons, including LPRs, into the United States in the event a serious danger of the introduction of a quarantinable communicable disease arises in the future.

The primary legal authority supporting this rulemaking is section 362 of the PHS Act, which is codified at 42 U.S.C. 265. Under section 362, the Secretary has the authority—if he were to determine that the existence of a communicable disease in a foreign country creates a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States, and that this danger is increased by the introduction of persons or property from such country such that suspension of introduction is necessary to protect the public health—to suspend, in accordance with regulations approved by the President, such period of time as he may deem necessary for such purpose.

In addition to section 362, other sections of the PHS Act are relevant to this rulemaking, including section 311, 42 U.S.C. 243; section 361, 42 U.S.C. 264; section 365, 42 U.S.C. 268; and section 367, 42 U.S.C. 270. Section 311 authorizes the Secretary to accept State and local assistance in the enforcement of quarantine rules and regulations and to assist States and their political subdivisions in the control of communicable diseases. Section 361 authorizes the Secretary to make and enforce such regulations that in the Secretary's judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States. It also permits the “apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals” in order to prevent the “introduction, transmission, or spread” of such communicable diseases as may be specified from time to time in Executive Orders of the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary, in consultation with the Surgeon General. Section 365 provides that it shall be the duty of designated customs officers and of Coast Guard officers to aid in the enforcement of quarantine rules and regulations. Section 367 authorizes the application of certain sections of the PHS Act and promulgated regulations (including penalties and forfeitures for violations of such sections and regulations) to air navigation and aircraft to such extent and upon such conditions as deemed necessary for safeguarding public health.

This interim final rule will implement amendments to section 71.40(f).

Although section 362 applies to “persons,” this interim final rule does not apply to U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals consistent with the constitutional limitations on the Federal Government's authority to restrict the return of its own citizens and nationals. U.S. citizens possess a fundamental constitutional right to enter the United States.

That does not render CDC without tools to address the public health risks posed by returning U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals who may have been exposed to quarantinable communicable diseases, including Ebola. Congress provided CDC with the authority to prohibit the introduction of persons who would increase a serious danger of introducing into the United States a quarantinable communicable disease, when required in the interest of the public health. CDC believes that, at present, quarantine, isolation, and conditional release, in combination with other authorities, while not perfect solutions, can mitigate any transmission or spread of communicable diseases, including Ebola caused by the Bundibugyo virus through the introduction of U.S. citizens into the United States, as that population is likely to be limited, and given the finite nature of the resources to support those actions. Section 71.40(f) therefore states that this interim final rule shall not apply to U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals. Determining the appropriate protections for U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals requires a complex balancing of numerous interests and would benefit from additional consideration and public comment. HHS does not want such concerns to delay the issuance of this interim final rule, which would enable the CDC Director to issue orders that would have the effect of slowing the introduction, transmission, and spread of quarantinable communicable diseases, including Ebola caused by the Bundibugyo virus in the United States.

The interim final rule will apply to lawful permanent residents. HHS and CDC have determined that permitting the Director of CDC or other Secretarial delegate the discretion to prohibit entry of certain lawful permanent residents is reasonably required in the interest of public health. In making that determination, HHS and CDC considered that many lawful permanent residents may maintain stronger ties to families and communities outside the United States than do U.S. citizens and nationals, such that prohibiting their entry is comparatively less burdensome to lawful permanent residents than to U.S. citizens or nationals. Moreover, lawful permanent residents may have comparatively deeper ties to their home countries or regions than do American citizens, whose connections to those countries or regions may be more fleeting. And those closer connections, more frequent visits, and additional time spent in relevant countries or region may increase the risk of exposure to pathogens in their home countries or regions during public health emergencies. HHS and CDC have also considered that, conversely, U.S. citizens and nationals would be more negatively affected by being prohibited from entering the United States.

Furthermore, HHS and CDC have determined that the interim final rule should apply to lawful permanent residents given resource constraints. Containing quarantinable communicable diseases on U.S. soil is highly resource-intensive, requiring specialized and isolated facilities with limited capacity. In their judgment, HHS and CDC have determined that current section 71.40 may not provide the Director of CDC or other Secretarial Delegate the flexibility needed to manage the influx of persons from designated foreign countries or places. Given the above analysis of the relative burdens faced by U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and lawful permanent residents, HHS and CDC have determined that the best balance between ensuring the Director of CDC has the ability to properly allocate resources and taking into account the interests of persons entering the United States is to draw the line at lawful permanent residents.

As with current section 71.40, this interim final rule only provides discretion to the Director of CDC to suspend the entry of covered aliens; it does not automatically prohibit the introduction of any individua into the United States.

Agency rulemaking is governed by section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) ( 5 U.S.C. 553 ). Section 553(b) requires that, unless the rule falls within one of the enumerated exemptions, HHS must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that provides interested persons an opportunity to submit written data, views, or arguments, prior to finalization of regulatory requirements. Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA authorizes a department or agency to dispense with the prior notice and opportunity for public comment requirement when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In addition, because this interim final rule represents a critical part of the dialogue between the United States and the Governments of the affected countries, DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan, as well as potential implementing partners Mexico and Canada, in preventing the spread of Ebola disease caused by Bundibugyo virus, it involves a “foreign affairs function of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

As noted above, the United States and the affected countries of DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan, along with other countries have taken necessary measures to try to contain or slow the transmission or spread of this Ebola disease outbreak. Such public health actions, especially the actions by the Secretary, have been taken to attempt to slow introduction and transmission of the disease into the United States, which benefit the public health, preserve limited public and private resources, particularly in the areas of quarantine and isolation, and give the U.S. public health system additional time to implement further measures to protect and support the public.

Nevertheless, these measures have not completely stopped (and will not completely stop) global travelers, and other persons crossing from one country into another country, from spreading Ebola disease caused by the Bundibugyo virus across country boundaries. This interim final rule's expanded discretion to exercise the suspension authority is therefore critical to slowing the introduction of Ebola disease into the United States. The United States is at a mitigation juncture where suspending the introduction of persons, including LPRs, from certain countries or places may be required in the interest of the public health, because it could materially reduce the transmission and spread of Ebola disease in the United States and the need for limited resources to implement any necessary public health actions. Because persons can have Ebola disease and be asymptomatic (although not infectious until symptomatic) at the time of introduction into the United States, and because specialized testing is needed to confirm infection with the disease, it is impracticable to confirm who is infected with Ebola disease and who is not infected with Ebola disease as persons move into the United States. Similarly, Federal quarantines or isolations of all such persons pending test results would be impracticable due to the potential numbers of persons involved if this necessary limitation is not imposed, logistical challenges, and CDC resource and personnel constraints.

Given that the outbreak has been declared a public health emergency of international concern, and that quick action is crucial to preventing spread of the disease, it would be impracticable and contrary to the public health—and, by extension, the public interest—to delay the necessary changes to this implementing regulation until a full public notice-and-comment process is completed.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), and for the reasons stated above, HHS therefore concludes that there is good cause to dispense with prior public notice and the opportunity to comment on this rule before finalizing this rule. For the same reasons, HHS has determined, consistent with section 553(d) of the APA, that there is good cause to make this interim final rule effective immediately upon filing at the Office of the Federal Register.

HHS requests comment on all aspects of this interim final rule, including its likely costs and benefits and the impacts that it is likely to have on the public health, as compared to the current requirements under 42 CFR part 71.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, and public health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a regulation (1) having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any one year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. This interim final rule is economically significant for the purposes of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. CDC, however, is proceeding under the emergency provision at Executive Order 12866 Section 6(a)(3)(D) based on the need to move expeditiously during the current outbreak and public health emergency of international concern to limit the introduction of Ebola disease into the United States.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that when an agency issues a proposed rule, or a final rule pursuant to section 553(b) of the APA or another law, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis that meets the requirements of the RFA and publish such analysis in the Federal Register . 5 U.S.C. 603, 604. Specifically, the RFA normally requires agencies to describe the impact of a rulemaking on small entities by providing a regulatory impact analysis. Such analysis must address the consideration of regulatory options that would lessen the economic effect of the rule on small entities. The RFA defines a “small entity” as (1) a proprietary firm meeting the size standards of the Small Business Administration (SBA); (2) a nonprofit organization that is not dominant in its field; or (3) a small government jurisdiction with a population of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(6). Except for such small government jurisdictions, neither State nor local governments are “small entities.” Similarly, for purposes of the RFA, individual persons are not small entities. The requirement to conduct a regulatory impact analysis does not apply if the head of the agency “certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The agency must, however, publish the certification in the Federal Register at the time of publication of the rule, “along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification.” Id. If the agency head has not waived the requirements for a regulatory flexibility analysis in accordance with the RFA's waiver provision, and no other RFA exception applies, the agency must prepare the regulatory flexibility analysis and publish it in the Federal Register at the time of promulgation or, if the rule is promulgated in response to an emergency that makes timely compliance impracticable, within 180 days of publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 604(a), 608(b). [19]

This interim final rule establishes a regulatory mechanism for the exercise of the PHS Act section 362 suspension authority, which directly applies against persons and not State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Accordingly, HHS and CDC certifies that this interim final rule would likely impact only persons, and that it would, therefore, not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, for the reasons set forth in this document pertaining to the Ebola disease outbreak, the Secretary finds that this interim final rule is being promulgated in response to an emergency that makes timely compliance with the provisions of section 604 impracticable.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act) ( 2 U.S.C. 1532 ) requires that covered agencies prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. Currently, that threshold is approximately $193 million. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires covered agencies to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. HHS has determined that this interim final rule is not expected to result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, that meets or exceeds the threshold in any one year because it only establishes a regulatory mechanism for the exercise of the PHS Act section 362 suspension authority, which applies against persons and not State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Accordingly, HHS has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered.

HHS has determined that the amendments to 42 CFR part 71 will not have a significant impact on the human environment. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

HHS has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12988 on Civil Justice Reform and has determined that this interim final rule meets the standard in the Executive Order.

This interim final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. Under 42 U.S.C. 264(e), Federal public health regulations do not preempt State or local public health regulations, except in the event of a conflict with the exercise of Federal authority. Other than to restate this statutory provision, this rulemaking does not alter the relationship between the Federal government and State/local governments as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 264. The longstanding provision on preemption in the event of a conflict with Federal authority ( 42 CFR 70.2 ) is left unchanged by this rulemaking. Furthermore, there are no provisions in this regulation that impose direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, HHS believes that the interim final rule does not warrant additional analysis under Executive Order 13132.

Under the Plain Language Act of 2010 ( Pub. L. 111-274, October 13, 2010), executive Departments and Agencies are required to use plain language in documents that explain to the public how to comply with a requirement the Federal Government administers or enforces. HHS/CDC has attempted to use plain language in promulgating this interim final rule, consistent with the Federal Plain Writing Act guidelines.

The Congressional Review Act defines a “major rule” as “any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to result in—(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.” 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this interim final rule is a major rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act. As this rule is promulgated under the “good cause” exemption of the Administrative Procedure Act, there is not a delay in its effective date under the Congressional Review Act.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 requires Federal departments and agencies to determine whether a proposed policy or regulation could affect family well-being. If the determination is affirmative, then the Department or agency must prepare an impact assessment to address criteria specified in the law. HHS has determined that this interim final rule will not have an impact on family well-being, as defined in the Act.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( 44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), HHS has reviewed this interim final rule and has determined that there are no new collections of information contained therein.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services, on behalf of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, amends 42 CFR part 71 as follows:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) maintains regulations in title 50, part 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations that identify the Service's headquarters and regional office locations. This final rule updates those provisions to reflect current mailing and street addresses for Headquarters and the eight Regional offices, ensuring that members of the public, partners, and other stakeholders have accurate contact and submission information. These updates are administrative and technical in nature and do not alter the rights, duties, or obligations of the public.

This final rule revises § 2.1 (Headquarters) to specify the current addresses for the Office of the Director and Headquarters program areas and to provide a mail stop (MS) table for program offices. It also revises § 2.2 (Regional offices) to update the geographic descriptions and street addresses for Service Regions 1 through 8.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice are exempt from notice-and-comment requirements. Because this rule is limited to updating addresses and organizational information, the Service finds that prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Further, the Service finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the APA to make this rule effective upon publication, as delaying effectiveness would serve no practical purpose and could cause confusion by perpetuating outdated contact information. This rule does not have a substantive effect on the public.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant. This rule, therefore, is not subject to E.O. 14192.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121)), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (that is, small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide the statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

We have examined this rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and have determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule provides technical changes to our addresses in our regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations. We are taking this action to ensure that our regulations reflect updated information for the public. This rule will not result in any costs or benefits to any entities, large or small.

Therefore, we certify that, because this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)) and does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. There are no costs to any entities resulting from these revisions to the regulations.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. The updating of the Service's contact information does not affect costs or prices in any sector of the economy.

c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ), we have determined the following:

a. This rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments in a negative way. A small government agency plan is not required.

b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year. It is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Under the criteria outlined in E.O. 12630, this final rule does not have significant takings implications. This rule is an administrative action to update Service addresses; it does not contain a provision for taking of private property. A takings implication assessment is not required.

This rule does not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant preparation of a federalism summary impact statement under E.O. 13132.

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

This rule does not contain any information collection that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

We evaluated the environmental impacts of the changes to the regulations and determined that this rule does not have any environmental impacts.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that this rule will not interfere with Tribes' ability to manage themselves or their funds. This rule offers Tribes and the general public accurate contact information for our offices.

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this rule is administrative, it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and it will not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Accordingly, we amend part 2, subchapter A of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: