This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes to amend regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating the handling of olives grown in California. Part 932 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of olives operating within the area of production, and one public member.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094. 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, 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. Executive Order 14094 directs agencies to conduct proactive outreach to engage interested and affected parties through a variety of means, such as through field offices, and alternative platforms and media. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have tribal implications. AMS has determined that this proposed rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects 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.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. Under the Order now in effect, California olive handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the proposed assessment rate would be applicable to all assessable olives beginning on January 1, 2024, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

Section 932.38 of the Order authorizes the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

This proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate from $35 per ton of assessed olives, the rate that was established for the 2023 fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years, to $28 per ton of assessed olives for the 2024 fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years. The proposed lower rate is the result of the significantly higher crop size in 2023 (fruit that is marketed over the course of the 2024 fiscal year), and the need to maintain the Committee's financial reserve at a responsible level.

The Committee met on December 12, 2023, and unanimously recommended 2024 expenditures of $1,100,151 and an assessment rate of $28 per ton of assessed olives. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,154,412. The proposed assessment rate of $28 is $7 lower than the rate currently in effect. Producer receipts show total production of approximately 34,000 tons of olives from the 2023 crop year that will be assessable during the 2024 fiscal year. This amount is substantially higher than the quantity of olives that was harvested in 2022.

Olives harvested in 2023 will be marketed over the course of the 2024 fiscal year, which begins on January 1, 2024, as the harvested olives are stored in brining tanks and processed over the subsequent year. The 34,000 tons of assessable olives from the 2023 crop would generate $952,000 in assessment revenue over the 2024 fiscal year at the proposed assessment rate. The balance of funds needed to cover budgeted expenditures would come from interest income and the Committee's financial reserve. The 2024 fiscal year assessment rate decrease is appropriate to ensure the Committee has sufficient revenue to fund the recommended 2024 fiscal year budgeted expenditures while also ensuring that funds in the reserve do not exceed approximately one fiscal year's expenses, the maximum reserve amount permitted by § 932.40.

The Order has a fiscal year and a crop year that are independent of each other. The crop year is a 12-month period that begins on August 1 of each year and ends on July 31 of the following year. The fiscal year is the 12-month period that begins on January 1 and ends on December 31 of each year. Olives are an alternate-bearing crop, with a small crop (2022) followed by a large crop (2023). For this assessment rate proposed rule, the Committee utilized the estimated 2023 crop year receipts to determine the recommended assessment rate for the 2024 fiscal year.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2024 fiscal year include $350,250 for program administration, $164,650 for export programs, $197,500 for marketing activities, $302,751 for research, and $85,000 for inspection. Budgeted expenses for these items during the 2023 fiscal year were $399,700, $148,000, $193,000, $325,712, and $88,000, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee resulted from consideration of anticipated fiscal year expenses, estimated olive tonnage received by handlers during the 2023 crop year, and the amount in the Committee's financial reserve. Income derived from handler assessments and other revenue sources is expected to be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. The assessment rate proposed in this rule would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's budget for subsequent fiscal years would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 800 producers of olives in the production area and 2 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $3.5 million (NAICS code 111339, Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming) and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are equal to or less than $34.0 million (NAICS code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities) (13 CFR 121.201).

Because of the large year-to-year variation in California olive production, it is helpful to use a two-year average of the seasonal average producer price when undertaking calculations relating to average producer revenue. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported season average producer prices of olives utilized for canning for 2021 and 2022 of $851 and $913 per ton, respectively, with a two-year average price of $882. NASS had not reported the 2023 season average producer price at the time this proposed rule was published.

The appropriate quantities to consider are the annual assessable olive quantities, which were 43,336 tons in 2021 and 19,912 tons in 2022, with the two-year average production being 31,624 tons. Multiplying 31,624 tons by the two-year average producer price of $882 yields a two-year average crop value of $27,892,368. Dividing the crop value by the number of olive producers (800) yields calculated annual average producer revenue of $34,865, much less than SBA's size standard of $3.5 million. Thus, the majority of olive producers may be classified as small entities.

Dividing the $27,892,368 average crop value by 2 (the number of handlers) equals $13,946,184, which is the annual average producer crop value processed by each of the 2 handlers over the two-year period. Dividing the $34.0 million annual sales SBA size threshold for a large handler by the $13,946,184 crop value per handler yields an estimate of a 125 percent manufacturing margin for the 2 handlers, on average, to be considered large handlers. A key question is whether 125 percent is a reasonable estimate of a manufacturing margin for the olive canning process.

A review of economic literature on canned food manufacturing margins found no recent published estimates. A series of Economic Research Service reports on cost components of farm to retail price spreads, published in the late 1970s and early 1980s, found that margins above crop value for a canned vegetable product were in the range of 76 to 85 percent. Although the studies are not recent, canning technology has not changed significantly since that time period. Therefore, with the 125 percent margin estimate for the 2 olive handlers, the data indicates that they could be on the threshold of being large handlers ($34.0 million in annual sales), using two-year average data, and assuming that the 2 handlers are about the same size. In a large crop year, one or both handlers could be considered large handlers, depending on the proportion of the crop that each of the handlers processed.

This proposal would decrease the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2024 fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years from $35 to $28 per ton of assessable olives. The Committee unanimously recommended 2024 expenditures of $1,100,151 and an assessment rate of $28 per ton. The recommended assessment rate of $28 is $7 lower than the 2023 assessment rate. The quantity of assessable olives harvested in the 2023 crop year is estimated to be 34,000 tons, compared to 19,912 tons in 2022. Olives are an alternate-bearing crop, with a small crop (2022) followed by a large crop (2023). Income derived from the $28 per ton assessment rate, along with interest income and funds from the authorized reserve, would be adequate to meet this fiscal year's budgeted expenditures.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2024 fiscal year include $350,250 for program administration, $164,650 for export programs, $197,500 for marketing activities, $302,751 for research, and $85,000 for inspection. Budgeted expenses for these items during the 2023 fiscal year were $399,700, $148,000, $193,000, $325,712, and $88,000, respectively.

The Committee deliberated on many of the expenses, weighed the relative value of various programs or projects, and decreased their expenses for inspection and research activities while increasing marketing activities. Overall, the 2024 budget of $1,100,151 is $54,261 less than the $1,154,412 budgeted for the 2023 fiscal year.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources including the Committee's Executive, Marketing, Inspection, and Research Subcommittees. Alternate expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various projects to the olive industry and the increased olive production. The assessment rate of $28 per ton of assessable olives was derived by considering anticipated expenses, the high volume of assessable olives, the current balance in the monetary reserve, and additional pertinent factors.

A review of information from NASS indicates that the average producer price for the 2022 crop year (the most recent year for which information is available) was $913 per ton. Therefore, utilizing the recommended assessment rate of $28 per ton, assessment revenue for the 2024 fiscal year as a percentage of total producer revenue would be approximately 3.1 percent ($28 divided by $913 times 100).

This proposed action would decrease the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers. Some of the assessment costs to handlers may be passed on to producers. Decreasing the assessment rate would reduce the burden on handlers and may also, therefore, reduce the burden on producers.

The Committee's meetings are widely publicized throughout the production area. The olive industry and all interested persons are invited to attend the meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the December 12, 2023, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. In addition, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California olive handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Committee and other available information, USDA has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with, and would effectuate the purposes of, the Act.

A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service proposes to amend 7 CFR part 932 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2024-0767; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00723-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to William Reisenauer, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7300; email: 9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2023-36, dated May 29, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-36) (also referred to after this as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 airplanes. The MCAI states that during the execution of a functional test procedure (FTP) during production, the baggage bay discharge PBA switch was partially engaged and failed to make electrical contact. Further investigation showed that in some instances, the baggage bay discharge PBA switch was making contact but was not fully engaged and the tabs were not fully locked, so while the PBA may pass the FTP, vibration could eventually lead to a loss of electrical contact and subsequent loss of baggage bay discharge PBA switch functionality.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the possible inability to discharge halon into the baggage compartment in case of a fire. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the inability to control a baggage compartment fire.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0767.

The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-7505, dated February 10, 2023. This service information specifies procedures for doing a general visual inspection of the baggage bay discharge PBA switch for proper installation and a functional operation test. This service information 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.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 42 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed 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.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

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

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2024-0769; Project Identifier AD-2023-00556-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Luis Cortez-Muniz Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3958; email: luis.a.cortez-muniz@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has received reports indicating multiple findings of cracks in the fuselage skin common to the UWL on all series of Boeing Model 777 airplanes. The crack findings were made during UWL replacement or accomplishing Boeing Service Bulletins 777-53-0084 or 777-53-0087, or Boeing Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0122 RB. In many of the fuselage skin crack reports, the UWL was reported not damaged. The found fuselage skin cracks were hidden externally by the UWL, and internally by fuselage frames and stringers. The fuselage skin cracks were found on airplanes with as few as 2,000 total flight cycles and 18,000 total flight hours. These fuselage skin cracks were determined to be caused by cold work surface upset that is not removed from the mating parts and high joint load transfer or significant local bending stresses at critical fastener locations. These conditions, if not addressed, could result in an inability of a principal structural element (PSE) to sustain limit load, leading to reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible loss of control of the airplane.

Boeing has issued Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-53A0100 RB, dated March 16, 2023, to address the identified unsafe condition.

AD 2023-17-14, Amendment 39-22541 (88 FR 60111, August 31, 2023) (AD 2023-17-14) requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the left and right side ring chords, repair angles, front spar lower chords, and front spar webs (depending on configuration) common to the UWL located at station (STA) 1035; modification of the front spar lower chord for some airplanes; repetitive post-modification inspections; and applicable on-condition actions, as specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0122 RB, dated October 8, 2021; and requires a maintenance records review of previously modified airplanes for the procedures used during that modification, and applicable corrective actions. Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-53A0100 RB, dated March 16, 2023, specifies that the modification in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0122 RB should be done before further flight if cracking is found during certain inspections. Therefore, this proposed AD, which mandates Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-53A0100 RB, dated March 16, 2023, might require that the modification be done prior to the compliance time for that modification as specified in AD 2023-17-14. For airplanes on which a front spar lower chord modification specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0122 RB is done as part of the requirements of paragraph (g) of this proposed AD, the modification requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2023-17-14 are terminated for the applicable side (left or right) on which the modification was done.

AD 2019-11-02, Amendment 39-19648 (84 FR 28722, June 20, 2019) (AD 2019-11-02) requires repetitive inspections of the left and right side UWLs and applicable on-condition actions as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 2, dated March 29, 2019. The accomplishment of the longeron modification specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53-0084, Revision 2, dated December 9, 2020, or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53-0087, Revision 1, dated March 4, 2020; or the front spar lower chord modification specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0122 RB, dated October 8, 2021; which must be done if cracking is found during certain inspections specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-53A0100 RB, dated March 16, 2023, terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2019-11-02 for the applicable side (left or right) on which the modification was done.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-53A0100 RB, dated March 16, 2023. This service information specifies procedures for external or internal (depending on configuration) detailed and ultrasonic or surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for any cracking of the left and right side fuselage skin common to the UWL, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include, among other things, modification of the fuselage skin, and post-modification inspections and applicable corrective actions (repairs of cracking). Compliance times for on-condition actions depend on inspection type, inspection findings, and modification status. Initial compliance times for post-modification inspections range from within 10,000 flight cycles or 50,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the modification; and within 30,000 flight cycles, 90,000 flight hours, or before the result of a certain total flight cycle and total flight hour equation, whichever occurs first after the modification. The repetitive intervals range from 8,000 flight cycles or 25,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first, to 11,000 flight cycles or 56,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first. Repairs of cracking found during post-modification inspections are to be accomplished before further flight.

The FAA also reviewed Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-24-0054-01B, dated January 26, 2024. This service information specifies corrections for Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-57A0122 RB, dated October 8, 2021, that address a non-destructive test manual (NDTM) error, fastener callout errors, inadequate cap seal instructions, figure orientation errors, minimum gap errors, missing fasteners on certain figures, affected groups missing from certain figures, and typographical errors.

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

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0769.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 272 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed AD.

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed 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.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

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

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2024-0766; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00711-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Vladimir Ulyanov, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 206-231-3229; email: vladimir.ulyanov@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2023-11-08, Amendment 39-22454 (88 FR 38384, June 13, 2023) (AD 2023-11-08), for all Airbus SAS Model A330-841 and -941 airplanes. AD 2023-11-08 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2022-0227, dated November 24, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0227), to correct an unsafe condition. EASA AD 2022-0227 superseded EASA AD 2022-0181, dated August 29, 2022 (which prompted FAA AD 2022-19-05, Amendment 39-22174 (87 FR 54870, September 8, 2022)).

AD 2023-11-08 requires maintenance actions, including an HPV seal integrity test, repetitive replacement of the HPV clips, revision of the existing AFM, and implementation of updates to the FAA-approved operator's MEL. The FAA issued AD 2023-11-08 to address a leaking HPV, which may expose the pressure regulating valve (PRV), which is installed downstream from the HPV, to high pressure, possibly damaging the PRV itself and preventing its closure. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in high pressure and temperatures in the duct downstream from the PRV, with possible duct burst, damage to several systems, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

Since the FAA issued AD 2023-11-08, EASA superseded AD 2022-0227 and issued EASA AD 2023-0111, dated May 26, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0111) (referred to after this as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-841 and -941 airplanes. The MCAI states that it has been determined that the interval for the HPV clip replacement must be based also on flight cycles accumulated by the HPV clip ( i.e., the interval must be reduced), and additional instructions applicable depending on BMC software configuration, have been identified ( i.e., an additional revision of the existing AFM is necessary for certain airplanes).

The FAA is proposing 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-2024-0766.

Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2023-11-08, this proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2023-11-08. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2023-0111, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.

EASA AD 2023-0111 specifies procedures for the following actions:

• Revision of the Limitations section of the existing AFM and removal of the previously required limitations.

• Implementation of the instructions of the MMEL update on the basis of which the operator's MEL must be amended with new provisions and procedures for the following items: Air Conditioning Pack, Engine Bleed Air Supply System, Engine Bleed IP (Intermediate Pressure) Check Valve, and Engine Bleed HP Valve and cancel the dispatch restrictions. Amending the applicable AFM of an airplane by incorporating the AFM Temporary Revision (TR) TR813 does not allow removal of the MMEL update as required by paragraph (7) of this [EASA] AD for that airplane.

• A seal integrity test of each HPV, and corrective actions (including replacement of the HPV, and a detailed inspection of the wing bellow on engine 1(2) and replacement of any damaged or deformed wing bellow). Also, accomplishing a Seal Integrity Test of each HPV in accordance with the instructions of the AOT.

EASA AD 2023-0111 also describes the following maintenance instructions for group 1 and group 2, among other actions, to be accomplished following certain faults or failures:

• HPV troubleshooting procedure and additional maintenance actions after any Class 1 maintenance message associated to an HPV fault, and corrective actions (including replacement of the HPV or wing bellow).

• HPV seal integrity test and the additional maintenance actions after any Class 1 or Class 2 maintenance message associated to a PRV fault, and corrective actions (including replacement of the HPV and PRV, and a detailed inspection of the wing bellow on engine 1(2) and replacement of any damaged or deformed wing bellow).

• A visual (borescope) inspection of the engine bleed air system (EBAS) to detect signs of foreign object debris (FOD), including metallic debris in the butterfly valve and dents or damage of the flaps of the intermediate pressure check valve (IPCV), and dents and missing segments in the PRV, the header of the high pressure/intermediate pressure (HP/IP) duct, the y-duct, and the pylon ducts after any failure of an HPV clip and/or any of the HPV butterfly sealing rings, and corrective actions (including removing FOD and replacing the IPCV or PRV).

• A seal integrity test of each HPV after any take-off or go-around accomplished with “packs OFF” or “APU bleed ON” or “engine bleed OFF,” and corrective actions (including replacement of the HPV, and a detailed inspection of the wing bellow on engine 1(2) and replacement of any damaged or deformed wing bellow).

• Additional actions to be performed for any Class 1 maintenance message associated with an HPV fault.

• Initial and repetitive replacement of each HPV clip with a new HPV clip.

• Reporting to Airbus of any failure detected during the accomplishment of any maintenance action, seal integrity test, or visual inspection specified in EASA AD 2022-0181.

EASA AD 2023-0111 also specifies that HPV clips may be installed provided they are new and serviceable, and replaced in accordance with paragraph (17) Table 1.

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.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2023-11-08. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2023-0111 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD and except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI.”

EASA AD 2023-0111 requires operators to “inform all flight crews” of revisions to the existing AFM and MEL, and thereafter to “operate the airplane accordingly.” However, this AD does not specifically require those actions, as those actions are already required by FAA regulations.

FAA regulations require operators to furnish to pilots any changes to the AFM (for example, 14 CFR 121.137), and to ensure the pilots are familiar with the AFM (for example, 14 CFR 91.505). As with any other flightcrew training requirement, training on the updated AFM content is tracked by the operators and recorded in each pilot's training record, which is available for the FAA to review. FAA regulations also require pilots to follow the procedures in the AFM including all updates. 14 CFR 91.9 requires that any person operating a civil aircraft must comply with the operating limitations specified in the AFM.

FAA regulations (14 CFR 121.628(a)(2)) require operators to provide pilots with access to all of the information contained in the operator's MEL. Furthermore, 14 CFR 121.628(a)(5) requires airplanes to be operated under all applicable conditions and limitations contained in the operator's MEL.

Therefore, including a requirement in this proposed AD to operate the airplane according to the revised AFM and MEL would be redundant and unnecessary.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2023-0111 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2023-0111 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2023-0111 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2023-0111. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0111 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0766 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA considers that this proposed AD would be an interim action. The FAA anticipates that further AD action will follow.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 27 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed 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 has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the maintenance actions specified in this proposed 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.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

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

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

On February 5, 2024, OSHA issued an NPRM to initiate rulemaking to update the existing Fire Brigades standard. The proposed rule would expand the scope of OSHA's standard to include a broad range of hazards emergency responders encounter during emergency response activities and would bring the standard in line with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Response Framework. It would also modernize the standard to align with the current industry consensus standards issued by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) on the safe conduct of emergency response activities.

The public comment period for the NPRM was to close on May 6, 2024, 90 days after publication of the NPRM. However, OSHA received requests from stakeholders to extend the comment period by an additional 30 days (Document ID 0419); 60 days (see, e.g., Document ID 0426, 0428, 0439, 0440); and 90 days (see, e.g., Document ID 0420, 0434, 0437, 0453). Stakeholders explained that they need additional time to carefully review the questions in the NPRM and gather data.

OSHA agrees to an extension of the public comment period and believes a 45-day extension is sufficient and appropriate in order to balance the agency's need for stakeholder input with the agency's desire to proceed with the rulemaking in a timely manner. Therefore, OSHA is extending the public comment period until June 21, 2024.

Additionally, several commenters submitted requests for a public hearing on the NPRM (see, e.g., Document ID 0435, 0444, 0456, 0459, 0463). OSHA plans to hold a virtual public hearing after the close of the comment period to allow stakeholders from all over the country to participate. OSHA will publish a separate notice at a future date to announce the details of the public hearing.

Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this document pursuant to the following authorities: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order 8-2020 (85 FR 58393 (Sept. 18, 2020)); 29 CFR part 1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553.

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priorities and requirements. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final priorities and requirements, we urge you to clearly identify the specific section of the proposed priorities and requirements that each comment addresses.

We are particularly interested in comments about whether the proposed priorities or any of the proposed requirements would be challenging for new applicants to meet and, if so, how the proposed priorities or requirements could be revised to address potential challenges. The Department is also particularly interested in comments in response to the following questions.

Directed Questions:

1. What are the common challenges or barriers experienced by State educational agencies (SEAs) in developing and implementing career pathways for those interested in becoming fully certified special education teachers, including paraprofessionals, through residency, grow your own (GYO), and registered apprenticeships programs?

2. What supports would help SEAs to develop and implement career pathways for those interested in becoming fully certified special education teachers, including paraprofessionals, through residency, GYO, and registered apprenticeships programs?

3. What are the common challenges or barriers experienced by SEAs in developing and implementing a system to address the professional learning and certification needs of personnel with an emergency certification who work with children with disabilities?

4. What supports would help SEAs to develop and implement a system to address the professional learning and certification needs of personnel with an emergency certification who work with children with disabilities?

5. Which stakeholders should SEAs collaborate with to develop and implement a system to address the professional learning and certification needs of personnel with an emergency certification who work with children with disabilities?

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities and requirements. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect public comments about the proposed priorities and requirements by accessing Regulations.gov . To inspect comments in person, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed priorities and requirements. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the SPDG program is to assist SEAs in reforming and improving their systems for personnel preparation and professional development of individuals providing early intervention, educational, and transition services to improve results for children with disabilities.

“Raise the Bar: Lead the World” (RTB) is the Department's call to action to transform prekindergarten through postsecondary learning and unite around what truly works by promoting academic excellence, boldly improving learning conditions, and preparing our Nation's students for global competitiveness ( www.ed.gov/raisethebar/ ). A robust and sustainable educator workforce available to educate and support all children and youth, including children and youth with disabilities, is essential to this call to action. These proposed priorities and requirements support the Department's RTB goals. Specifically, we are proposing priorities designed to:

• Mitigate the barriers to improved educational outcomes and functional results for children with disabilities by increasing the number of well-qualified, fully certified special education teachers, including paraprofessionals;

• Increase collaborative and effective instruction and services for children with disabilities;

• Expand the ability of principals to serve as instructional leaders who create an equity-based, cooperative, and inclusive environment; and

• Provide pre-service and in-service personnel with the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspiration to engage effectively with families.

The SPDG program, as a pre-service and in-service professional development program, is uniquely positioned to support the Department's RTB goals by helping to ensure that children with disabilities have access to well-qualified educators and by growing the number of teachers and administrators who can use data to develop and implement standards-based individualized education programs (IEPs) and provide effective instruction in inclusive environments. The proposed priorities specified in this notice are designed to support pathways and professional development for personnel to improve outcomes for children with disabilities.

We intend for these proposed priorities to supplement Absolute Priorities 1 and 2 published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2022 (87 FR 77566), 1 as well as other relevant statutory and regulatory priorities established by the Department. Specifically, as part of any SPDG competition, all applicants would be required to meet the statutory requirements in sections 651 through 655 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1451-1455.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1451-1455.

This document contains five proposed priorities. Proposed Priorities 1 through 5 are based on allowable activities in sections 651 through 655 of IDEA. These proposed priorities would be applicable to all eligible applicants. We may apply one or more of these priorities in any year in which this program is in effect.

Background:

The purpose of this proposed priority is to assist SEAs in developing and implementing or enhancing existing teacher residency, grow your own (GYO), and registered apprenticeships programs that provide additional pathways to becoming a special education teacher.

According to the October 2022 results of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) School Pulse Panel on Staffing, 21 percent of responding public schools reported that they were not fully staffed in the area of special education for the 2022-2023 school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2023). Ensuring all students have access to a well-qualified, fully certified teacher must continue to be a priority for all States. By reducing the cost of earning a license and offering flexible scheduling, teacher residency, GYO, and registered apprenticeships programs are designed to bring more people into the profession. Teacher residency, GYO, and registered apprenticeships programs may open doors to the profession for those who may otherwise face barriers to entrance, including multilingual, racially and ethnically diverse individuals, individuals who have disabilities, and paraprofessionals who may already have decades of classroom experience, but for numerous reasons, including cost, could not pursue a teaching degree.

The Department has partnered with the Department of Labor and leading education organizations to advance high-quality and affordable teacher preparation through the expansion of registered apprenticeship programs for K-12 teachers, which can be used to scale and strengthen evidence-based teacher residency and GYO programs (see www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/31/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-public-and-private-sector-actions-to-strengthen-teaching-profession-and-help-schools-fill-vacancies/ and www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-labor-departments-announce-new-efforts-to-advance-teacher-preparation-programs-and-expand-registered-apprenticeships-educators ).

Research shows that high-quality residency models can expand the pool of well-prepared applicants entering the teaching profession, promoting diversity of the workforce and bringing a wide range of experiences into the classroom to support students. A 2014 implementation study published by the Institute of Education Sciences shows that residents are more likely than nonresidents to report feeling prepared to enter the classroom and that after program completion, more than 90 percent of residents stayed in their school district for three years (Silva et al., 2014).

When aligned to high-quality, evidence-based practices for education preparation, such as those drafted by the Pathways Alliance and approved by the Department of Labor, registered apprenticeship programs have the potential to be an effective, high-quality “earn and learn” model that allow candidates to earn their teaching credential while earning a salary by combining coursework with structured, paid on-the-job learning experiences with a mentor teacher (Pathways Alliance, 2023). Registered apprenticeship programs for K-12 teachers can be used to establish, scale, and build on existing high-quality pathways into teaching that emphasize classroom-based experience, such as teacher residencies.

GYO is an approach to developing a pipeline of educator candidates to meet specific workforce needs that seeks to eliminate any barriers that may prevent local candidates from entering or remaining in the field. GYO programs are distinguished from other pipelines by whom they target, focusing on recruitment of high school students, career changers, paraprofessionals, non-teaching-school faculty, and community members (Espinoza et al., 2018). Offering financial aid ( e.g., loan forgiveness and scholarships) to candidates completing GYO programs, targeting communication to specific populations, and establishing systems for candidates to receive continuous coaching and mentoring from entrance into the GYO program through early service can all aid in the success of these programs (Carver-Thomas, 2018; Professional Educator Standards Board, 2018; Texas Comprehensive Center, 2018). GYO programs can help address shortages in high-need areas and subjects, such as in rural schools and in special education (Jessen et al., 2020); it can also result in improved recruitment and retention of teachers of color (Gist et al., 2019).

Proposed Priority 1:

Projects designed to increase the number of certified special education teachers by establishing a new, or enhancing an existing, teacher residency, GYO, or registered apprenticeship program that minimizes or eliminates the cost of certification for special education teacher candidates and provides opportunities for candidates to be paid, including being provided with a stipend (which, for programs that include paid experience for the duration of the certification program, can be met through paragraph (i), below), to cover the time spent gaining classroom experience during their certification program.

A project implementing a new or enhanced teacher residency, GYO, or registered apprenticeship program must—

(a) Use data-driven strategies and evidence-based approaches to increase recruitment, successful completion, and retention of the special education teachers supported by the project;

(b) Provide standards for participants to enter into and complete the program;

(c) Be aligned to evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) practices for effective educator preparation;

(d) Have little to no financial burden for program participants, or provide for loan forgiveness;

(e) Provide opportunities for candidates to be paid, including being provided with a stipend, to cover time spent in clinical experience during their certification program;

(f) Develop a plan to monitor program quality;

(g) Require completion of a bachelor's degree either before entering or as a result of the residency, GYO, or apprenticeship program;

(h) Result in the satisfaction of all requirements for full State teacher licensure or certification, excluding emergency, temporary, provisional, or other sub-standard licensure or certification;

(i) Provide increasing levels of responsibility for the resident/GYO participant/apprentice during at least one year of paid on-the-job learning/clinical experience, during which a mentor teacher is the teacher of record; and

(j) Develop a plan to ensure the program has funding after the end of the project period.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.

Background:

Citing a Department of Education report, Wilkerson and colleagues (2022) note that all States and the District of Columbia have reported a shortage of special education teachers in at least one academic year between 2014-2018. In fact, 48 States have authorized alternative routes to fill special education positions (Myers et al., 2020).

For decades, school districts have relied on unlicensed special education teachers to fill these vacancies, leaving students with disabilities to receive educational services from insufficiently trained individuals and resulting in inequitable educational opportunities (Wilkerson et al., 2022). Under IDEA, teachers who are not fully certified may provide special education instruction under an emergency certification as long as they are participating in a program that provides an alternate route to full special education teacher certification and that certain additional criteria are met. 2 Numerous States across the country have filled teaching positions through such emergency certifications due to shortages of fully certified special education teachers.

National test scores suggest students with disabilities are losing ground in reading and are not improving in mathematics (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2023; U.S. Department of Education, 2022). It is critical that special educators serving under an emergency certification become fully certified via high-quality programs. A high-quality pathway to certification can provide special education teachers with the knowledge and skills to collaboratively develop, implement, and monitor the progress of IEPs that lead to student success, while planning and providing instruction alongside general education teachers. They require the skills to effectively collaborate with administrators, related service providers, and families to optimize instruction, services, and supports for students with disabilities.

Proposed Priority 2:

Projects designed to increase the number of fully certified special education teachers by implementing plans that address the emergency certification needs of personnel who work with children with disabilities. The plans must—

(a) Identify the barriers and challenges to full certification that are experienced by special education personnel on emergency certifications;

(b) Include evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) strategies to address those barriers and challenges and assist special education personnel on emergency certifications to obtain full certification, consistent with State-approved or State-recognized requirements, within three years;

(c) Include training and coaching on, at a minimum—

(1) The skills needed to collaboratively develop, implement, and monitor standards-based IEPs;

(2) High-leverage and evidence-based instructional and classroom management practices; and

(3) The provision of wrap-around services ( e.g., social, emotional, and mental health supports), special education services, and other supports for children with disabilities; and

(d) Provide participating special education personnel on emergency certifications with opportunities to apply the evidence-based skills and practices described in paragraph (c) in the classroom.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.

Background:

A cornerstone of special education under IDEA is a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). It is through high-quality person-centered  3 individualized education programs (IEPs) that local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools plan and deliver evidence-based instruction, supports, and services to students with disabilities to provide FAPE in the LRE. However, States, LEAs, and schools continue to face significant challenges with providing FAPE, including person-centered, rigorous, and specially designed instruction and service delivery. Recent research indicates that the majority of IEPs are incomplete and lack substantive sufficiency of the statement of present levels of performance, which is the crucial initial component of a person-centered IEP ( e.g., Hott et al., 2021; Lequia et al., 2023).

Effective preparation and support can increase the opportunities for, and ability of, leaders, educators, and families to participate in the development, implementation, and progress monitoring of academically meaningful and legally sound person-centered IEPs (Yell et al., 2020). Under IDEA, an IEP team for a child with a disability must include the child's parent(s), at least one general education teacher, the child's special education teacher or, where appropriate, the child's special education provider, a local educational agency representative, the child, whenever appropriate, and others who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child. The multidisciplinary nature of the IEP team presents collaborative opportunities and challenges, especially between school professionals and parents (Goldman & Mason, 2018; Mueller & Vick, 2019). Parents play a critical role in the child's life. Parental input helps identify the child's strengths and needs and aids the team identifying appropriate services. This parental input adds significant value to the IEP and can lead to improved educational results and functional outcomes. To best support students, school and district personnel on IEP teams need the skills to choose and use evidence-based practices for core instruction and supplemental supports and services, such as those designed to foster self-efficacy, as well as to increase the child's learning opportunities with general education peers.

Proposed Priority 3:

Projects designed to provide pre-service and in-service training to school and district personnel, including IEP team members ( e.g., special education and general education teachers, related service personnel who work with children with disabilities) and administrators, to improve their skills in developing and implementing person-centered IEPs that support instructional progress and improve functional outcomes  4 for children with disabilities. Projects must—

(a) Provide training and coaching to administrators and IEP team members to increase their ability to develop, implement, and monitor person-centered IEPs that support instructional progress so that they can—

(1) Use appropriate data to determine the child's instructional and functional strengths and needs;

(2) Increase the child's learning time and opportunities with general education peers, as appropriate, based on research;

(3) Choose and use evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) practices for core instruction; and

(4) Supplement core instruction with special education services.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.

Background:

When principals are strong instructional leaders who help create an inclusive school environment and district leaders support those principals, all students, including students with disabilities, can thrive. School building administrators, including principals, vice principals, and teacher leaders, are responsible for IDEA implementation and ensuring children with disabilities are provided the services and supports that they are eligible for under IDEA. School building administrators help set high expectations for performance in schools and ensure that the unique, individual needs of each child with a disability are met, consistent with their IEP, and district administrators give them the tools, training, and support they need to do so.

Given that school building leaders have complex roles, it is not surprising that administrators who receive high-quality training handle the multi-faceted demands of the role better and stay in their jobs longer (Herman et al., 2022). When that is the case, principals can be instrumental in supporting teacher and provider practices, motivating school staff, maintaining a positive school program climate, and ensuring inclusive settings are offered. Access to professional learning opportunities influences administrators' job satisfaction and retention (Boyce & Bowers, 2016). In addition to covering essential, research-based content on topics such as instructional leadership, data-based decision making, and systems improvement, the structure of continued professional development for administrators also matters (Darling-Hammond et al., 2022). Especially important to building the capacity of administrators is access to coordinated, continued professional development with structured learning opportunities, such as through a cohort model, mentoring, one-on-one coaching, networking to build a professional community, applied learning opportunities, and problem-solving related to the needs of individual children.

Proposed Priority 4:

Projects designed to provide professional development to improve the instructional leadership provided by principals, district leaders, and teacher leaders (administrators) to promote educational equity for children with disabilities. Projects must provide training and coaching to assist administrators to—

(a) Create and support equitable school schedules and other operations that enable collaborative services from general and special education staff;

(b) Support schoolwide inclusionary practices within a multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) framework;

(c) Support evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) professional development for their staff related to—

(1) Effective content instruction;

(2) Data for decision-making and continuous progress monitoring;

(3) IEP development and implementation; and

(4) Wrap-around services;

(d) Actively engage families and school communities to identify and address concerns regarding, and barriers to, accessibility, equity, and inclusiveness, using frameworks such as universal design; and

(e) Provide administrators structured learning opportunities, such as through a cohort model, mentoring, one-on-one coaching, networking to build a professional community, and applied learning opportunities, such as problem-solving related to the needs of individual children.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.

Background:

Family engagement is one of the most powerful predictors of a child's development, educational attainment, and success in school and life (Weiss et al., 2018). Research shows that increased family involvement is related to improved child development and student achievement, attendance, behavior, graduation rates, advanced course enrollment, and college enrollment (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Robinson et al., 2018; Young et al., 2023). The perspective of family members at the table is needed to create and advocate for the kinds of student-centered learning experiences that will allow all students to: master academic content aligned with the standards; gain future-ready knowledge, skills, and dispositions; and succeed in postsecondary learning and careers (Weiss et al., 2018). Research suggests that collaboration between schools and families is an important support for students with learning and behavioral challenges, including students with disabilities (Sheridan & Wheeler, 2017). Further, children learn anywhere, anytime, and not just in school. Families play a central role in supporting learning and building learning pathways.

To bring families to the table and engender learning in the home and community, commitments and support that foster mutual trust and shared responsibility are necessary (Ogg et al., 2021). Educators who understand how culture and community shape family engagement practices can better work from families' strengths and create high-quality IEPs that will lead to success in school, college, and career.

Family engagement is central to IDEA, which states that families are equal members of the IEP team who must be provided the opportunity to fully participate in all decisions concerning a child's evaluation, placement, and services. When families contribute to IEP decisions, educators may be more successful in planning and delivering productive interventions and supports (Turnbull et al., 2018). Furthermore, involving families in data-based decision making allows them to take a more active role in supporting their children's learning and behavior at home (Weingarten et al., 2020). Families can reinforce school routines, expectations, and language, thereby creating alignment between home and school that may, in turn, contribute to improved student outcomes (Garbacz et al., 2016). Family-professional partnerships and caregiver involvement are impacted by how educators value caregivers' input, and school-home communication can have positive effects on child behavioral outcomes (Li & Burke, 2023).

Proposed Priority 5:

Projects designed to develop the capacity of administrators and educators to develop systems and use strategies that build trust and engagement with families, while further strengthening the role families play in their child's development and learning. Projects must—

(a) Provide training and coaching to assist administrators to—

(1) Develop and implement policies and programs that recognize families' funds of knowledge, connect family engagement to student learning, and create welcoming, inviting cultures; and

(2) Create systems that support staff and families in meaningful engagement ( i.e., Leading by Convening and the Dual-Capacity Framework. For more information visit www.dualcapcity.org and www.ncsi.wested.org/resources/leading-by-convening );

(b) Provide training and coaching to assist educators and early intervention providers to—

(1) Build their knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, aspirations, and behaviors about effective strategies to engage families in their child's learning;

(2) Work with families to make collaborative, data-based decisions in the development and implementation of the child's IEP; and

(3) Provide information and resources to families that enable them to support their children's learning and behavior at home; and

(c) Provide training and coaching to families so they can—

(1) Meaningfully participate in the development and implementation of their child's IEP;

(2) Participate in data-based decision making related to their child's education; and

(3) Further their child's learning at home.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Elements.

Common Elements:

In addition to the requirements contained in the proposed priorities, to be considered for funding, applicants must meet the following application and administrative requirements:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Align with and integrate other State initiatives and programs, as well as district and local improvement plans, to leverage existing professional development and data systems;

(2) Develop and implement plans to sustain the grant program after the grant funding has ended; and

(3) Integrate family engagement into all project efforts by supporting capacity building for personnel and families.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will—

(i) Develop the knowledge and ability of personnel to be culturally responsive and engage children and families with a strengths-based approach;

(ii) Engage students, families, and community members to assess the appropriateness and impact of the intervention, program, or strategies; and

(iii) Review program procedures and resources to ensure a diversity of perspectives are brought into the project; and

(2) Achieve the project's goals and objectives. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) Either a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) or theory of action (to be provided in Appendix A), which demonstrates how the proposed project will achieve intended measurable outcomes;

(ii) A description of proposed in-State and national partners that the project will work with to achieve the goals and objectives of the grant and how the impact of these partnerships will be measured; and

(iii) A description of how the project will be based on current research and make use of evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(A) The current research base for the chosen interventions;

(B) The evidence-based model or practices to be used in the project's professional development activities; and

(C) How implementation science will be used to support full and sustained use of evidence-based practices and result in sustained systems of implementation support.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation,” include an evaluation plan for the project developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party  5 evaluator. The evaluation plan must—

(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model or theory of action required under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of these requirements;

(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;

(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed logic model or theory of action and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;

(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate that the data will be available annually for the annual performance report to the Department; and

(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of resources,” how—

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits and funds will be spent in a way that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the management plan,” how the proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(1) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable;

(2) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

(3) How key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes; and

(4) How the proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, technical assistance providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must—

(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

(2) Provide an assurance that any project website will include relevant information and documents in a form that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for accessibility;

(3) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:

(i) An annual one and one-half day SPDG National Meeting in the Washington, DC area during each year of the project period; and

(ii) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period, provided that, if the conference is conducted virtually, the project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period; and

(4) Budget $6,000 annually for support of the SPDG program network and website currently administered by the University of Oregon ( www.signetwork.org ).

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register . The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Priorities and Requirements:

We will announce the final priorities and requirements in a document in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priorities and requirements after considering public comments on the proposed priorities and requirements and other information available to the Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities and these requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register .

Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (adjusted every three years by the Administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.

This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.

We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” OIRA has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing these proposed priorities and requirements only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.

The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed priorities and requirements easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

• Are the requirements in the proposed priorities and requirements clearly stated?

• Do the proposed priorities and requirements contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?

• Does the format of the proposed priorities and requirements (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?

• Would the proposed priorities and requirements be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?

• Could the description of the proposed priorities and requirements in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in making the proposed priorities and requirements easier to understand? If so, how?

• What else could we do to make the proposed priorities and requirements easier to understand?

To send any comments about how the Department could make these proposed priorities and requirements easier to understand, see the instructions in the ADDRESSES section.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies that these proposed priorities and requirements would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Participation in the SPDG program is voluntary. In addition, the only eligible entities for this program are SEAs, which do not meet the definition of a small entity. For these reasons, the proposed priorities and requirements would not impose any additional burden on small entities. We expect that in determining whether to apply for SPDG program funds, an eligible entity would evaluate the requirements of preparing an application and any associated costs and weigh them against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving an SPDG program grant. An eligible entity probably would apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application.

We believe that these proposed priorities and requirements would not impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence of the proposed regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an application would likely be the same.

This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under this program. We invite comments from eligible small entities as to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to support that belief.

These proposed priorities and requirements contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028. The proposed priorities and requirements do not affect the currently approved data collection.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 24-83, adopted March 19, 2024, and released March 20, 2024. The full text of this Commission decision is available online at https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs. The full text of this document can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). The Commission will publish the required summary of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings, pursuant to The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, see 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4).

Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( Second FNPRM ) FCC 24-18, in MB Docket No. 98-204, adopted on February 7, 2024, and released on February 22, 2024. The complete text of this document is available electronically via the search function on the FCC's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-18A1.pdf.

1. Having addressed the issues concerning the reinstatement of the Form 395-B data collection, we now seek, by this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( Second FNPRM ), to refresh the existing record regarding the statutorily mandated collection of Form 395-A data pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 554(d)(3)(A)-(B). Since 1984 the Commission has required MVPDs with six or more full-time employees to file the FCC Form 395-A. Similar to the Form 395-B collected from broadcasters, Form 395-A seeks to gather workforce composition data from multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) on an annual basis. The Commission suspended the filing of Form 395-A in 2001 in the wake of the decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Associations v. FCC (MD/DC/DE Broadcasters), which vacated certain aspects of the Commission's EEO requirements for broadcasters. While the similar requirements for MVPDs have never been challenged, the Commission suspended the collection of both Forms 395-A and B, along with various EEO requirements, in order to analyze the impact of the MD/DC/DE Broadcasters decision. In the Third Report and Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( Third Report and Order and Fourth NPRM ), the Commission reinstated Forms 395-A and B pending resolution of questions about confidential collection and use. As the Commission had not resolved those questions until its adoption of the Fourth Report and Order in MB Docket No. 98-204 ( Fourth R&O ), the collection of the Form 395-A remained suspended along with the Form 395-B. Despite that suspension, the Commission continued to seek OMB approval for the information collection, and during that time, OMB approved both Forms 395-A and B, subject to the Commission's resolution of confidentiality issues regarding the forms' collection and use. Although the filing of the Form 395-A has been suspended since 2001, OMB has most recently approved the information collection through January 31, 2026.

2. We now seek by this Second FNPRM to refresh the record stemming from the Third Report and Order and Fourth NPRM regarding the collection of MVPD workforce composition data. Consistent with the analysis provided in the Fourth R&O for making Form 395-B data public, we tentatively conclude that the collection of Form 395-A also should be reinstated and made available for public review. We seek comment as to whether Congress's directive that MVPD operators make Form 395-A available for public inspection at their own facilities would be consistent with our amending our rules to require that MVPD operators instead make Form 395-A publicly available through the Commission-hosted Online Public Inspection File (OPIF). While section 634(d)(3)(B) of the Act states that an MVPD should make Form 395-A available for public inspection at the MVPD's central office and at every office where five or more full-time employees are regularly assigned to work, section 634(d)(4) of the Act permits the Commission to amend the requirements associated with Form 395-A as needed. We tentatively conclude that requiring the Form 395-A to be placed in the OPIF would be more efficient for the public that wishes to review such reports, as OPIF provides one online site for such review. We also tentatively conclude that hosting the reports in OPIF will reduce the burdens placed on MVPDs, as this will relieve the MVPDs of maintaining such reports at individual central offices, including providing sufficient staffing for such offices. We also tentatively conclude that our proposal to change the location of where the Form 395-A data will be housed from the MVPD's central office to the OPIF website is consistent with the basic intent of section 634(d)(3)(B) of the Act, which is to ensure that the public has access to the Form 395-A data. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. Alternatively, if section 634(d)(3)(B) of the Act were to be read to compel availability of Form 395-A at MVPD offices, would it be within our authority and consistent with sound policy to additionally require availability through OPIF?

3. In the Order on Reconsideration, we modified § 73.3612 of our rules to specifically state that the Form 395-B data will not be used in assessing any aspect of an individual broadcast licensee's or permittee's compliance with both the nondiscrimination and equal employment opportunity requirements of § 73.2080. Despite the slight variation in the underlying statutory authority for the collection of the workforce employment data from MVPDs versus broadcasters, the Commission traditionally has treated both data collections in a similar manner. In this regard, the Commission has imposed the same restrictions on the use of workforce composition data stemming from both Forms 395-A and B. Consequently, we tentatively conclude that § 76.1802 of our rules concerning the MVPD annual employment report should be modified so as to align with the modifications made to § 73.3612 of our rules for broadcasters in the Order on Reconsideration. In the Order on Reconsideration, we incorporated what appears as a Note to § 73.3612 into the rule itself to conform to the publishing conventions of the National Archives and Records Administration's Office of the Federal Register. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion to do the same with regard to the language that currently appears as a Note to § 76.1802, to read as follows:

Each employment unit with six or more full-time employees shall file an annual employment report on the FCC Form 395-A with the Commission on or before September 30 of each year. Data concerning the gender, race and ethnicity of an employment unit's workforce collected in the annual employment report will be used only for purposes of analyzing industry trends and making reports to Congress. Such data will not be used for the purpose of assessing any aspect of an individual employment unit's compliance with our nondiscrimination or EEO rules for multi-channel video program distributors.

4. As stated in the Fourth R&O, the Form 395-B will include a mechanism to provide further specificity about broadcaster employees' gender identities. We seek comment on whether we should adopt a similar mechanism for the Form 395-A.

5. We also seek comment on the attendant costs and benefits of any proposals advanced in response to this item.

6. Digital Equity and Inclusion. Finally, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all under 47 U.S.C. 151, including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

7. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose. With respect to the Second FNPRM, this proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules at 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

8. Filing Requirements—Comments and Replies. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.145 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, (63 FR 24121).

9. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, we have prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact of rule and policy change proposals on small entities in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

10. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis for Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 98-204. This Second FNPRM may contain proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on these information collection requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

11. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 requires each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. Accordingly, the Commission will publish the required summary of this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( Second FNPRM ). The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified in the Second FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Second FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Second FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

13. The Second FNPRM seeks to refresh the record regarding the Commission's annual collection of broadcaster multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) composition data by race and gender on FCC Form 395-A. In 2001, the Commission suspended the filing of Form 395-A after a federal court decision vacated certain aspects of the Commission's equal employment opportunity (EEO) requirements for broadcasters. Although the similar requirements for MVPDs have never been challenged, the Commission suspended the collection of both the broadcasters' Form 395-B and the MVPDs' Form 395-A, along with various EEO requirements, in order to analyze the impact of the federal court decision. In 2004, the Commission reinstated Forms 395-A and B pending resolution of questions about confidential collection and use of the forms' data. Today, having resolved the issues related to the confidentiality of the Form 395-B data in the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission now seeks public comment on the legal issues pertaining to availability and confidentiality of Form 395-A data.

14. Consistent with the decision in the Fourth Report and Order to make Form 395-B data public, the Commission tentatively concludes in the Second FNPRM that the collection of Form 395-A should also be reinstated in the same manner as it was previously with regard to public availability. The Communications Act requires an MVPD to make its Form 395-A available for public inspection at the MVPD's central office and at every office where five or more full-time employees are regularly assigned to work. The Commission has traditionally treated Form 395-A and B data in the same manner with regard to confidentiality. Consequently, the Second FNPRM seeks comment on whether instead of (or in addition to) maintaining the Form 395-A at a MVPD's central office, the form should now be maintained on the Commission's website similar to the requirement now established in the Fourth Report and Order for broadcasters' Form 395-B. Other than a proposal to include a mechanism in the Form 395-A that would enable MVPDs to account for those employees who identify as gender non-binary, the proposed reinstatement of this collection does not change the form's reporting requirements. We predict that inclusion of this mechanism, which would allow for accurate data gathering, would incur only a minimal economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

15. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 4(j), 4(k), 303, 403, and 634(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 154(k), 303, 403, and 554(d).

16. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed revisions, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act (SBA). A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.

17. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission has developed its own small business size standard for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Based on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S. Of these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data, there are about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these, about 639 have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are small.

18. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a “small cable operator,” which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer than 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data, only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system operators are small under this size standard. We note however, that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.

19. Open Video Systems. The open video system (OVS) framework was established in 1996 and is one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. OVS operators provide subscription services and therefore fall within the SBA small business size standard for the cable services industry, which is “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small. Additionally, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators who are now providing service and broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises. The Commission does not have financial or employment information for the entities authorized to provide OVS however, the Commission believes some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.

20. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV systems or PCOs are included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers' industry which includes wireline telecommunications businesses. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

21. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS is included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry which comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.

22. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small under the SBA small business size standard. According to Commission data however, only two entities provide DBS service—DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network, which require a great deal of capital for operation. DIRECTV and DISH Network both exceed the SBA size standard for classification as a small business. Therefore, we must conclude based on internally developed Commission data, in general DBS service is provided only by large firms.

23. In this section, we identify the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements contained in the Second FNPRM and consider whether small entities are affected disproportionately by any such requirements. To a large degree, the Second FNPRM only seeks to reinstitute the previous reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements for collection of MVPD workforce composition data on Form 395-A, as this collection was previously suspended in 2001. The Second FNPRM, does, however, seek comment on whether to replace the existing requirement that a MVPD maintain a copy of the Form 395-A at its central office with a requirement that a MVPD instead upload a copy of its Form 395-A to the Commission's website. Alternatively, if the statute were read to compel availability of Form 395-A at MVPD offices, the Second FNPRM seeks comment on whether it is within our authority and consistent with sound policy to additionally require availability through the OPIF. So as to harmonize the MVPD requirements with those imposed on broadcasters, the Second FNPRM also seeks comment on whether to modify the Commission's rules so as to include a statement that the Commission will not use the Form 395-A data when assessing compliance with both the nondiscrimination and EEO requirements of its rules. Currently, the prohibition contained in the Commission's rules only references a restriction on the use of the Form 395-A data for assessing compliance with the EEO rules. Because the only proposed modification in the Second FNPRM with regard to reporting or recordkeeping obligations is merely a change in the location of where the Form 395-A will be housed ( i.e., on the Commission's website rather than (or in addition to) the MVPDs' central office), we do not anticipate a significant change in the compliance burden for small entities. Additionally, MVPD employment units with less than six full-time employees are exempt from filing the statistical data requested on the form. Hence, the Commission concludes that small entities will not be disproportionately affected by the Second FNPRM.

24. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

25. The Second FNPRM seeks to refresh the record regarding the Commission's annual collection of MVPD workforce composition data by race and gender on Form 395-A. It would lead to a resumption of this data collection and would propose only to modify one of the locations where the Form 395-A should be retained, by seeking comment on whether an MVPD should retain a copy on the Commission's website in lieu of (or in addition to) at the MVPDs' central office. To the extent MVPDs were maintaining hard copies of the Form 395-A at their central offices, we anticipate that storing an electronic copy on the Commission's website will minimize the economic burdens on MVPDs. Where maintenance of a hard copy necessitates the use of MVPD staff time to monitor public access to the Form 395-A, retention of an electronic copy on the Commission's website presents itself as a simple and straightforward process, requiring only a minimal degree of navigating the Commission's database system to upload the information. Further, as detailed in the Second FNPRM, the collection of MVPD workforce composition data and providing the data for public inspection are required by section 634(d) of the Act.

26. None.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 76 as follows: