The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A318-112 airplanes; Model A319-115, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-112 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2023 (88 FR 55953). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0014, dated January 18, 2023, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2023-0014) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that computations conducted on the Model A320 family program showed that the fatigue life limit of the motoreductor, installed on the on-board entrance stairs and acting as one of the two (stair) immobilization systems, is not demonstrated for the complete airplane design service goal (DSG). Therefore, a motoreductor failure could remain undetected during the period between the demonstrated life limit of the motoreductor and the airplane DSG (and subsequent extended service goal). A failed motoreductor, if not corrected, could lead to an airstairs deployment in flight, possibly resulting in loss of control of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive replacement of the motoreductor for onboard entrance stairs, and limit the installation of affected parts under certain conditions, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0014. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1711.

The FAA received comments from a commenter, American Airlines (AAL). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

AAL requested revising paragraph (c) of the proposed AD to narrow the scope of affected airplanes to only those that have had certain modifications accomplished for installing airstairs on the affected Airbus SAS model airplanes (identified as Group 1 airplanes in EASA AD 2023-0014). AAL acknowledged that the FAA carried over EASA AD 2023-0014's applicability statement on all serial numbers of the affected Airbus SAS models. AAL also noted that the replacement action is only necessary if the airplane is equipped with the airstairs.

The FAA agrees that the replacement actions are only required for airplanes equipped with the affected airstairs (Group 1 airplanes). However, the FAA has determined it is necessary to retain the proposed applicability that is based on EASA's determination of the effectivity of EASA AD 2023-0014. Airplanes that have airstairs installed after the effective date would be subject to the requirements of this AD. Removing airplanes identified as Group 2 airplanes in EASA AD 2023-0014 (airplanes not equipped with the affected airstairs) would remove this AD from those airplanes' records and possibly increase the risk that the affected airstair part could be installed during a later modification of the Group 2 airplane into a Group 1 airplane without the operator's awareness that the requirements of this AD would then apply to that airplane. A Group 2 airplane with on-board entrance stairs becomes a Group 1 airplane. Operators can check the airplane's maintenance records to monitor the Group status and determine the applicable requirements for that airplane. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.

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 reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2023-0014 specifies procedures for repetitive replacement of the motoreductor for Airbus on-board entrance stairs, including a detailed inspection to determine the threshold for replacement. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 954 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-24-12, Amendment 39-21342 (85 FR 76949, December 1, 2020) (AD 2020-24-12). AD 2020-24-12 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. AD 2020-24-12 required replacing certain CWB fasteners with fasteners having improved friction efficiency. The FAA issued AD 2020-24-12 to address CWB fastener rotation. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to cracking of the fastener head sealant cover, followed by fuel vapor leakage inside the cabin, possibly resulting in injury to airplane occupants.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2023 (88 FR 65831). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0068, dated March 30, 2023, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2023-0068) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that during flight and fatigue testing it was discovered that some fasteners can rotate inside their CWB fastener holes. Further investigation identified insufficient friction for the application. After EASA issued AD 2020-0123 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2020-24-12), it was determined that additional work is necessary to ensure the correct application of the fuel vapor barrier structure paint on the outside of the CWB. CWB fastener rotation, if not corrected, can lead to a crack of the fastener head sealant cover, followed by fuel vapor leakage inside the cabin, possibly resulting in injury to airplane occupants.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2020-24-12 and to require the additional work, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0068. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1887.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

In the NPRM, the FAA inadvertently omitted an exception allowing the use of the effective date of this AD in lieu of the effective date of the EASA AD. The FAA has added paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to include that exception.

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 reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2023-0068 specifies procedures for replacing the affected CWB fasteners with fasteners having improved friction efficiency, and for doing additional work on previously modified airplanes to ensure the correct application of the fuel vapor barrier structure paint from outside the CWB.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain WACO Classic Aircraft Corporation Model 2T-1A-2 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2023 (88 FR 73780). The NPRM was prompted by reports of multiple types of cracks after low flight hours on WACO Classic Aircraft Corporation Model 2T-1A-2 airplanes. The cracks were approximately 1 to 1.5 inches long and located in the leading edge former ribs and trailing edge former ribs in the upper wing center section, along the top flange where the ribs attach to the spar. Due to the cracking, the fabric support channels have come close to separating from the trailing edge former ribs. When fabric support channels detach from a rib, they would still be attached to the fabric, but the upper center wing airfoil may not maintain its shape due to the fabric support channels being pulled up by aerodynamic loads, which could lead to unexpected and unknown flight characteristics. The type certificate holder determined that this unsafe condition affects airplane serial numbers 1200 and subsequent with the upper wing center section assembly 30116-100 configuration. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require installing maneuver restriction placards in the front and rear cockpits, inspecting the leading and trailing edge former ribs for cracking, replacing any cracked ribs, modifying the upper wing center section assembly, and removing the maneuver restriction placards after completing the modification. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed WACO Great Lakes 2T-1A-2 Service Bulletin GL-SB0002, Revision NR, dated July 6, 2023 (WACO SB 2T-1A-2, Revision NR). This service information specifies procedures for inspecting the leading edge former ribs and trailing edge former ribs in the upper wing center section for cracking, replacing any cracked ribs, and modifying the upper wing center section assembly by installing new fabric support channels, saddles, and brackets. Modifying the upper wing center section assembly changes the configuration from the 30116-100 upper wing center section assembly configuration to the 30116-104 upper wing center section assembly configuration.

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.

Although section B of the Accomplishment Instructions in WACO SB 2T-1A-2, Revision NR, specifies to record the locations of all identified cracks found on the leading edge former ribs and the trailing edge former ribs and share this information with WACO Aircraft, this AD does not require those actions.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 19 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary rib replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this replacement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Saab AB, Support and Services Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2023 (88 FR 69105). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0135, dated July 10, 2023, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2023-0135) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states a system review of the anti-skid system revealed the possibility of inadvertently connecting the inboard harness to the outboard channel (and vice versa) of the wheel speed transducers in the MLG wheel axles. This condition, if not detected and corrected, would lead to wrong inputs to the anti-skid function, whenever activated, with consequent reduced braking capability, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modification of the MLG by installing color markings on the harnesses and the wheel axles, to ensure proper installation and connection of the anti-skid harnesses, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0135. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1896.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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 reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2023-0135 specifies procedures for modifying the left- and right-hand MLG and connectors with color markings. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 17 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model:

• A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes;

• A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes;

• A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes;

• A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes;

• A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, -343, -841, and -941 airplanes; and

• A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2023 (88 FR 70913). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0094, dated May 8, 2023, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2023-0094) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that a production deficiency of some SLGOC batches was identified during production testing of newly manufactured oxygen containers. Subsequent investigation identified missing heat treatment of the actuation pin of the SLGOC, which could cause its jamming, with consequent failure of oxygen flow activation. This condition, if not corrected, could prevent supplemental oxygen supply in case of decompression in the cabin/lavatory, possibly resulting in injury to lavatory occupants.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing affected SLGOCs and prohibiting the installation of affected SLGOCs, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0094. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1994.

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

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 reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2023-0094 specifies procedures for replacing affected SLGOCs and prohibiting the installation of affected SLGOCs. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 728 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this 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 AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2023-04-10, Amendment 39-22357 (88 FR 20743, April 7, 2023) (AD 2023-04-10). AD 2023-04-10 applied to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes. AD 2023-04-10 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2023-04-10 to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane. AD 2023-04-10 specifies that accomplishing the revision required by that AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010) (AD 2010-26-05) for Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes only. This AD therefore continues to allow that terminating action.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2023 (88 FR 47086); corrected August 14, 2023 (88 FR 54933). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0046, dated March 2, 2023, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2023-0046) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2023-04-10 and to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0046. The FAA is issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1502.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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 reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0046. This service information specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This AD also requires EASA AD 2022-0137, dated July 6, 2022, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of May 12, 2023 (88 FR 20743, April 7, 2023).

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 151 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2023-04-10 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2023 (88 FR 57012). The NPRM was prompted by a reported quality escapement where the seat track fitting nuts were under-torqued on some flight attendant seats in production. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require re-torquing each free-standing attendant seat track fitting nut. The FAA is issuing this AD to address under-torqued seat track fitting nuts. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the forward-facing flight attendant seats breaking free in a high load event, causing injury to flight attendants and blocking the exits during emergency egress.

The FAA received comments from Boeing and United Airlines who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from American Airlines (AAL). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

AAL requested that the FAA increases the work-hour estimate provided in the Costs of Compliance section of the proposed AD to 3 hours.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's request. The FAA has revised the Costs of Compliance section of this AD accordingly.

AAL requested the compliance time for the actions (re-torquing each free-standing attendant seat track fitting nut) be revised to one year after the effective date of this AD. AAL noted that a one-year compliance time would provide flexibility and allow the task to be accomplished during the A-checks within the AAL maintenance program. AAL also noted it has accomplished maintenance review board (MRB) task 25-146-00 on 85% of its affected airplanes with zero reports of findings. AAL stated the MRB task specifies to verify the seat track fittings are fully installed and cannot be moved manually and to correctly torque the seat track fitting if it is not tight. However, AAL acknowledged that MRB task 25-146-00 does not require a torque check. AAL stated that a one-year compliance window is a reasonable compliance time and will maintain the desired level of safety.

The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request to revise the compliance time from six months to one year. The FAA does not base compliance intervals on nonspecific intervals such as an A-check as those intervals are operator specific. Further, MRB task 25-146-00 does not check any torques of any of the fitting nuts that are identified in Boeing Service Letter 787-SL-25-025, dated September 6, 2022, which is the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the re-torquing of each free-standing attendant seat track fitting nut required by this AD. The MRB task only checks for looseness of the fitting, which means the seat jumped the tracks. For the MRB task, if the seat did not move and the fitting was in the track, no actual checking of the nut torque was accomplished; therefore, the seat track fitting nut still needs to be re-torqued. The FAA has determined that accomplishing the re-torquing of each free-standing attendant seat track fitting nut within 6 months after the effective date of this AD is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, the FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Service Letter 787-SL-25-025, dated September 6, 2022. This service information specifies procedures for re-torquing each free-standing attendant seat track fitting nut to 140-150 in-lbs. 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 .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 134 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-02-18, Amendment 39-21401 (86 FR 10740, February 23, 2021) (AD 2021-02-18) (which corresponds to EASA AD 2020-0159). AD 2021-02-18 applied to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes and Model C-295 airplanes. AD 2021-02-18 required repetitive inspections for cracking or broken rivets of certain left- and right-hand stringers and surrounding structure, and repair if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2021-02-18 to address such cracking in the stringers, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. FAA AD 2021-02-18 explained that the requirements were “interim action,” and further rulemaking was being considered. The FAA has now determined that further rulemaking is necessary, and this AD follows from that determination.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2023 (88 FR 71778). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0103, dated May 23, 2023, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2023-0103) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that since EASA AD 2020-0159 was issued, a modification was developed to reinforce the structure in the affected area, which is a terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by EASA AD 2020-0159. The MCAI does not include Model CN-235-100 airplanes since a determination was made that the only remaining airplanes in service are operated by a government military service. The FAA has determined that since these models remain on the FAA type certificate data sheet, AD action is necessary to address the unsafe condition. Therefore, this AD includes this model in the AD applicability and provides corrective actions to address the unsafe condition.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue certain actions in EASA AD 2020-0159. The NPRM also proposed to require the new terminating action for the repetitive inspections, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0103. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1999.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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 reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2023-0103 specifies procedures for detailed visual (DET) or high frequency eddy current inspections of the stringer P0a and P0a' at the riveted line of the attachment to the gusset and along the stringer head, in particular at the area of the last attachment of the gusset to the stringer in the midpoint between FR43 and FR44, DET inspections for fatigue cracks of the fuselage skin, along the stringers' footprint and surrounding structure and the attachment of the gusset to the FR43; DET inspections for fatigue cracks of the actuator bracket on FR43, along the radius of the vertical nerves, inner lug holes, and attachment holes of the bracket to FR43; DET inspections for fatigue cracks or broken rivets in the web and joint clips to skin and stringer of both sides of the frame between stringer P1d and P1d' (two stringers for each side from the central stringer P0a); DET inspections for fatigue cracks or broken rivets of the gussets, along the flange which joins FR43; and repair of any cracking or broken rivets.

EASA AD 2023-0103 also specifies procedures for modifying structures between frames FR43 and FR44, on stringers STGR0A and STGR0A': Replacing supports, formers, installing fittings, radius guards, and hardware attachments.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 10 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all RRD Model Trent 1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3, Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, and Trent 1000-R3 engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2023 (88 FR 67121). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2023-0087, dated April 26, 2023 (EASA AD 2023- 0087) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that the RRD engine time limits manual (TLM) provides instructions for visual inspection of the IP8 and HP3 air transfer tubes and front bearing housing IP8 air feed tubes for cracking, damage, or air leakage wear at intervals consistent with critical part life assessments. Also, certain inspection intervals mandated by the MCAI, and not previously included in the TLM, are shorter than the engine shop visit intervals. Thus, more frequent visual inspections of the IP8 and HP3 air transfer tubes and front bearing housing IP8 air feed tubes are necessary. The manufacturer issued service information that provides instructions for visual inspections of the IP8 and HP3 air transfer tubes and front bearing housing IP8 air feed tubes.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require initial and repetitive visual inspections of the IP8 and HP3 air transfer tubes and front bearing housing IP8 air feed tubes for cracking, damage, or air leakage wear, and replacement, if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1892.

The FAA received one comment from The Boeing Company (Boeing). Boeing supported the NPRM without change.

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0087, which specifies procedures for performing initial and repetitive visual inspections of the IP8 and HP3 air transfer tubes and front bearing housing IP8 air feed tubes for cracking, damage, or air leakage wear, and replacement if necessary.

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 ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 16 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2023-2399; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00592-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, 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 final rule 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 final rule.

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 AD 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 AD, 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Joshua Bragg, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 216-316-6418; email: joshua.k.bragg@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.

ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued ANAC AD 2023-04-02, effective April 11, 2023 (ANAC AD 2023-04-02) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-300 and -400 airplanes. The MCAI states that the method to calculate level-off altitude by the CAFM may result in a non-conservative level-off height. In case of an engine failure during a takeoff, the airplane may not be able to overcome obstacles when the airport is limited to obstacle clearance in the acceleration segment. Since this condition may occur in other airplanes and affects flight safety, corrective action is required.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2399.

ANAC AD 2023-04-02 specifies procedures for updating Supplement 1 of the AFM to incorporate CAFM version 1.9 or further versions for Model ERJ 190-300 airplanes or CAFM version 1.5 or further versions for Model ERJ 190-400 airplanes, as approved versions in the Limitations block. 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 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 AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in ANAC AD 2023-04-02 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

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, ANAC AD 2023-04-02 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with ANAC AD 2023-04-02 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Service information required by ANAC AD 2023-04-02 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2399 after this AD is published.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

There are currently no domestic operators of these products. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the foregoing reason(s), the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2023 (88 FR 57902). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-21, dated March 30, 2023, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that some airplanes were delivered without a portable PBE device located in the left-side forward wardrobe, or cockpit, or passenger cabin area of the airplane. The portable PBE device is required to meet the certification standards of Transport Canada and the FAA and provides protection for crew members when investigating or combatting a fire in the cabin. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require visually inspecting the forward left side cabin area of the airplane to determine if the portable PBE device is installed and, if not installed, would require installing the portable PBE device along with the associated placard. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1715.

The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Bombardier requested that the proposed AD be revised to clarify the locations of the portable PBE devices. Bombardier stated that these locations were specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-21 and Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-35-008, Revision 02, dated January 13, 2023.

The FAA agrees to add the specified locations and has revised the relevant sections in this AD accordingly.

Bombardier requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be revised to change the paragraph reference for verifying installation of the PBE device and placard from “Section 2.B.” of the service information to “Section 2.B.1.”

The FAA agrees to change the paragraph reference as requested and has revised paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly. Likewise, where paragraph (g) of the proposed AD specified installing those parts in accordance with “section 2.B.” of the service information, this has been changed to “paragraph 2.B.(2)” in this AD.

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 reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-35-008, Revision 02, dated January 13, 2023. This service information specifies procedures for performing a general visual inspection of the left-side forward wardrobe, or flight deck, or passenger cabin area of the airplane for a portable PBE device and, if missing, installing a portable PBE device and its associated placard. 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.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 139 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-07-15, Amendment 39-22003 (87 FR 22438, April 15, 2022) (AD 2022-07-15). AD 2022-07-15 applied to all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -273N airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. AD 2022-07-15 required replacing affected BSCUs and revising the operator's existing FAA-approved MEL. The FAA issued AD 2022-07-15 to address loss of braking performance with significant increase in airplane stopping distance, possibly resulting in a runway excursion.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 27, 2023 (88 FR 66307). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0093R1, dated May 15, 2023, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2023-0093R1) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI notes that the previous detection of several BSCU channel failures could induce, in the event of dual channel failures, loss of anti-skid function together with the reversion to the alternate braking mode, and loss of nose wheel steering, and lead to loss of braking performance with significant increase in airplane stopping distance, possibly resulting in a runway excursion. The MCAI states that further investigation identified a type 1 relay installed in a position where a type 2 relay should have been installed. The combination of a type 1 relay with an affected BSCU could induce BSCU freezing. EASA therefore determined that it is necessary to replace type 1 relays with type 2 relays.

The MCAI also states that type 1 relays are no longer installed on Model A320 Current Engine Option (CEO) airplanes ( i.e., Model A318 series airplanes; A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes). Type 1 relays were required to be replaced on Model A320 CEO airplanes by AD 96-04-06, Amendment 39-9518 (61 FR 6927, February 23, 1996). AD 96-04-06 corresponded to DGAC France AD F-1993-163-043, dated September 29, 1993. Model A320 CEO airplanes are therefore not included in the applicability of this AD.

Further, the MCAI states that some relays installed at functional item number (FIN) locations 24GG and 25GG were not in conformity with the Airplane Inspection Report on certain airplanes.

In addition, it was determined that certain airplanes have been delivered with a BSCU P/N E21327107.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to remove certain airplanes from the applicability, retain the requirements of AD 2022-07-15, require an inspection for the relay type installed and replacement of type 1 relays with type 2 relays, limit the installation of affected BSCUs on certain airplanes and prohibit the installation of affected BSCUs for certain other airplanes, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0093R1 described previously. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1882.

The FAA received a comment from United Airlines, which supported the NPRM without change.

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 reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2023-0093R1 specifies procedures for replacing affected BSCUs if a fault signature is triggered, and implementing the instructions of master minimum equipment list (MMEL) updates on the basis of which the operator's existing MEL must be amended-that is, procedures for revising the operator's existing FAA-approved MEL with the provisions in the MMEL updates specified in the EASA AD. EASA AD 2023-0093R1 also specifies procedures for a general visual inspection of the FINs 24GG and 25GG to identify the relay type installed, and replacement of each type 1 relay with a type 2 relay. EASA AD 2023-0093R1 also limits the installation of affected parts.

Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A32N025-22, Rev 01, dated May 10, 2023, including Appendixes 1 through 3, dated May 2023, defines BSCU fault signatures that may be triggered on the airplane, and specifies procedures for replacing affected parts, among other actions.

This AD also requires Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A32N025-22, Rev 00, dated February 24, 2022, including Appendixes 1 through 4, dated February 21, 2022, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of May 2, 2022 (87 FR 22438, April 15, 2022).

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 349 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, January 25, 2024.

The Copyright Act provides that the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) commence a proceeding every fifth year to determine royalty rates and terms for the recording of ephemeral copies of sound recordings pursuant to the statutory license in 17 U.S.C. 112(e)(1) to facilitate digital audio transmissions of those sound recordings to business establishments pursuant to the limitation on exclusive rights specified by 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(1)(C)(iv). See 17 U.S.C. 804(b)(2).

In accordance with section 804(b)(2), the Judges commenced the proceeding to set rates and terms for the period 2024-2028 on January 5, 2022 (87 FR 490). In the Federal Register notice, the Judges requested that interested parties submit petitions to participate. Petitions to Participate were received from: Mood Media Corp., Music Choice, Rockbot, Inc., Sirius XM Radio Inc. and Its Wholly Owned Subsidiaries, SoundExchange, Inc., Soundtrack Your Brand Sweden AB, and Stingray Music USA Inc. The Judges initiated the three-month negotiation period and directed the participants to submit written direct statements no later than September 19, 2022. See 17 U.S.C. 803(b)(3).

On September 19, 2022, the Judges received a Motion to Adopt Settlement stating that all participants  1 had reached a settlement obviating the need for written direct statements or a hearing.

Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act authorizes the Judges to adopt royalty rates and terms negotiated by “some or all of the participants in a proceeding at any time during the proceeding” provided they are submitted to the Judges for approval. The Judges must provide “an opportunity to comment on the agreement” to both participants and non-participants in the rate proceeding who “would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by any agreement . . .” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(i). Participants in the proceeding may also “object to [the agreement's] adoption as a basis for statutory terms and rates.” Id. Accordingly, on October 4, 2023 the Judges published a notice requesting comment on the proposed rates and terms (88 FR 68527). The Judges received no timely comments or objections in response to the October 4, 2023 notice.

Having received no opposition to the agreement and finding that the agreement among the moving parties provides a reasonable basis for setting statutory rates and terms, the Judges, by this notice, adopt as final regulations the rates and terms for the making of an ephemeral recording of a sound recording by a business establishment service for the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2028.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges amend part 384 of chapter III of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

This document announces that, on December 14, 2023, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to § 64.6040(c) of the Commission's rules, as contained in the Commission's 2022 ICS Order, FCC 22-76, published at 87 FR 75496 on December 9, 2022. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1222. In the 2022 ICS Order, the Commission stated that the amendments to the rules were effective on January 9, 2023, except for the amendments to §§ 64.611(k)(1)(i) through (iii), 64.6040(c), and 64.6060(a)(5) through (7), which were delayed pending OMB approval. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of § 64.6040(c) only.

If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20002. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1222, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on December 14, 2023, for the information collection requirements contained in § 64.6040(c) of the Commission's rules.

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1222.

The foregoing notification is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The data collection burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1222.

OMB Approval Date: December 14, 2023.

OMB Expiration Date: December 31, 2026.

Title: Inmate Calling Services (ICS) Provider Annual Reporting, Certification, and Other Requirements, WC Docket Nos. 23-62, 12-375, DA 23-656.

Form Numbers: FCC Form 2301(a) and FCC Form 2301(b).

Respondents: Business or other for profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 30 respondents; 33 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 5 hours-1,200 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting and certification requirements, third party disclosure and waiver requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 5(c), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 155(c), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 617, and the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022, Public Law 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156.

Total Annual Burden: 6,690 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: In 2015, the Commission released the Second Report and Order and Third Notice of Further Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 12-375, 30 FCC Rcd 12763 ( 2015 ICS Order ), in which it required that inmate calling services (ICS) providers file Annual Reports providing data and other information on their ICS operations, as well as Annual Certifications that reported data are complete and accurate and comply with the Commission's ICS rules. Pursuant to the authority delegated it by the Commission in the 2015 ICS Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) created a standardized reporting template (FCC Form No. 2301(a)) and a related certification of accuracy (FCC Form No. 2301(b)), as well as instructions to guide providers through the reporting process. See ICS Annual Reporting Form Word Template (Current), WC Docket No. 12-375 https://www.fcc.gov/general/ics-data-collections (last visited December 18, 2023) (Word Template); ICS Annual Reporting Form Excel Template (Current), WC Docket No. 12-375, https://www.fcc.gov/general/ics-data-collections (last visited December 18, 2023) (Excel Template); ICS Annual Reporting and Certification Instructions (Current), WC Docket No. 12-375 https://www.fcc.gov/general/ics-data-collections (last visited December 18, 2023) (Instructions) (Certification Instructions); ICS Annual Report Certification Form (Current), WC Docket No. 12-375, https://www.fcc.gov/general/ics-data-collections (last visited December 18, 2023) (Certification Form).

In 2021, the Commission released the Third Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) WC Docket No. 12-375, 36 FCC Rcd 9519 (2021). The Commission revised its rules by adopting, among other things, lower interim rate caps for interstate calls, new interim rate caps for international calls, and a new rate cap structure that requires ICS providers to differentiate between legally mandated and contractually required site commissions. The revisions also included expanded consumer disclosure requirements, as well as new reporting requirements for providers seeking waivers of the Commission's interstate and international rates.

In 2022, the Commission released the Fourth Report and Order and Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 12-375, FCC 22-76 (September 30, 2022). The Commission adopted numerous requirements to improve access to communications services for incarcerated people with communication disabilities and expanded the scope of the Annual Reports to reflect these new requirements. Pursuant to § 64.6040(c), the Commission required, among other things, that, as part of its obligation to provide access to telecommunications relay services (TRS), when an incarcerated person who has individually registered to use video relay service (VRS), internet protocol (IP) Relay, or internet protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS) is released from incarceration or transferred to another correctional facility, the ICS provider must notify the TRS provider(s) with which the incarcerated person has registered. Under section § 64.6060(a)(5) through (7), the Commission amended the annual reporting and certification requirement to include, among other things, that ICS providers report, for each facility served, the types of TRS that can be accessed from the facility and the number of completed calls and complaints for TTY-to-TTY calls, American Sign Language (SL) point-to-point video calls, and each type of TRS for which access is provided.

On January 5, 2023, the President signed into law the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022, Public Law 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156 (the Martha Wright-Reed Act or the Act), expanding the Commission's statutory authority over communications services between incarcerated people and the non-incarcerated to include “any audio or video communications service used by inmates . . . regardless of the technology used.” The new Act also amends section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act) to make clear that the Commission's authority extends to intrastate as well as interstate and international communications services used by incarcerated people.

The Act directs the Commission to “promulgate any regulations necessary to implement” the statutory provisions, including its mandate that the Commission establish a “compensation plan” ensuring that all rates and charges for IPCS “are just and reasonable,” not earlier than 18 months and not later than 24 months after its January 5, 2023, enactment. The Act also requires the Commission to consider, as part of its implementation, the costs of “necessary” safety and security measures, as well as “differences in costs” based on facility size, or “other characteristics.” It also allows the Commission to “use industry-wide average costs of telephone service and advanced communications services and the average costs of service of a communications service provider” in determining just and reasonable rates.

On March 17, 2023, pursuant to the directive that the Commission implement the new Act and establish just and reasonable rates for incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS), the Commission released Incarcerated People's Communications Services; Implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Act; Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, WC Docket Nos. 23-62, 12-375, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, FCC 23-19, 88 FR 20804 ( 2023 IPCS Notice ) and 88 FR 19001 (Order) ( 2023 IPCS Order ). The Commission sought comment on how to interpret the Act's language to ensure that the Commission implements the statute in a manner that fulfills Congress's intent. Because the Commission is now required or allowed to consider certain types of costs, the Act contemplates that it would undertake an additional data collection. To ensure that it has the data necessary to meet its substantive and procedural responsibilities under the Act, the Commission adopted the 2023 IPCS Order delegating authority to WCB and the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) to modify the template and instructions for the most recent data collection to the extent appropriate to timely collect such information to cover the additional services and providers now subject to the Commission's authority. On April 28, 2023, WCB and OEA issued a Public Notice seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed data collection. WCB and OEA Seek Comment on Proposed 2023 Mandatory Data Collection for Incarcerated People's Communication Services, WC Docket Nos. 23-62, 12-375, Public Notice, DA 23-355 (WCB/OEA April 28, 2023). On July 26, 2023, WCB and OEA released an Order adopting instructions, a reporting template, and a certification form to implement the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection. Incarcerated People's Communications Services; Implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Act, Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, WC Docket Nos. 23-62, 12-375, Order, DA 23-638 (July 26, 2023). In the 2023 IPCS Order, the Commission also reaffirmed and updated its prior delegation of authority to WCB and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) (collectively, the Bureaus) to revise the instructions and reporting templates for the Annual Reports. Specifically, the Commission delegated to the Bureaus the authority to modify, supplement, and update the instructions and templates for the Annual Reports.

On August 3, 2023, the Bureaus issued a Public Notice seeking comment on proposed revisions to the instructions, template, and certification form for the Annual Reports, https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-2023-ipcs-annual-reports, which are necessary to reflect the revised rules improving access to communications services for incarcerated people with communication disabilities adopted in the 2022 ICS Order and to help implement the Martha Wright-Reed Act to ensure just and reasonable rates for consumers and fair compensation for providers. Wireline Competition Bureau and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seek Comment on Revisions to IPCS Providers' Annual Reporting and Certification Requirements, Public Notice, WC Docket Nos. 23-62, 12-375, DA 23-656 (August 3, 2023). https://www.fcc.gov/document/2023-incarcerated-peoples-communications-services-annual-reports-pn. Notice of this document was published in the Federal Register at 88 FR 53850 on August 9, 2023.

The Bureaus have not yet issued an Order adopting revisions to the instructions, template, and certification form for the Annual Reports. To effectuate the improved access to communications services for incarcerated people with communication disabilities required by § 64.6040(c) of the Commission's rules, the Bureaus divided the information requirements and burdens of this information collection into two PRA submissions to OMB, with the first seeking approval of the new information requirements associated with § 64.6040(c) of the Commission's rules. OMB approved the revised information collection on December 14, 2023. Upon release of an Order adopting revisions to the instructions, template, and certification form for the Annual Reports, the Bureaus will seek OMB approval of any revised information requirements adopted in that Order, as well as the new information requirements in § 64.6060(a)(5) through (7), which expands the rule requiring the filing of Annual Reports to include additional data related to access to communications services for incarcerated people with communication disabilities.

The South Atlantic snapper-grouper and golden crab fisheries are managed under the Snapper-Grouper FMP and Golden Crab FMP, respectively. The dolphin and wahoo fishery of the Atlantic is managed under the Dolphin and Wahoo FMP. These 3 FMPs were prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and are implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Council has developed, and NMFS has approved, the Comprehensive Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rule Amendment: Revisions to the Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rules and Specifications for Carry-Overs and Phase-Ins. The Council document is composed of Amendment 45 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP, Amendment 11 to the Golden Crab FMP, and Amendment 11 to the Dolphin and Wahoo FMP.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS and the regional fishery management councils prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities and protecting marine ecosystems. The Council and NMFS manage snapper-grouper species and golden crab in Federal waters from North Carolina south to the Florida Keys. The Council and NMFS manage the dolphin and wahoo fishery in Federal waters from Maine south to the Florida Keys.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary to approve, disapprove, or partially approve fishery management plan amendments and issue regulations necessary to implement them (16 U.S.C. 1854(a)). On September 11, 2023, NMFS published a notice of availability for the ABC Control Rule Amendments and requested public comment (88 FR 62309). On October 2, 2023, NMFS published a proposed rule for the ABC Control Rule Amendments and requested public comment (88 FR 67721). NMFS approved the ABC Control Rule Amendments on December 8, 2023. The proposed rule and the ABC Control Rule Amendments detail the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule and is not all repeated here. This final rule (1) provides notice of approval of the ABC Control Rule Amendments and (2) makes minor changes to regulatory text to implement those amendments to the FMPs. A summary of the management measures described in the ABC Control Rule Amendments and implemented by this final rule is provided below.

The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will use the ABC control rules described in the ABC Control Rule Amendments and implemented by this final rule to recommend future ABC levels to the Council. The ABC control rules use uncertainty and risk ranking traits to determine the acceptable risk of overfishing. The ABC control rule is the method by which the ABC for a stock is set, ideally based on an overfishing limit (OFL) from a stock assessment but at times established using more data-limited methodologies. The acceptable risk of overfishing is denoted as P-Star (P*) and is applied through stock assessment projections to develop the SSC's ABC recommendation to the Council.

In October 2016, NMFS published a final rule to revise the guidelines for National Standard 1 (NS1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (81 FR 71858, October 18, 2016). NS1 states that fishery conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry. One of the objectives of the 2016 NS1 revisions was to provide additional flexibility within current statutory limits to address fishery management issues. For example, the revised NS1 guidelines allow for changes in catch limits to be phased in over time. A similar “phase-in” provision is included in the ABC Control Rule Amendments and this final rule. The revised guidelines also allow for some of the unused portion of an ACL to be carried over from a single fishing year to the next, which is also described as “carry-over” in this final rule.

The ABC Control Rule Amendments incorporate carry-over and phase-in provisions by modifying the existing ABC control rules for the Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs by clarifying the incorporation of scientific uncertainty and management risk, modifying the approach used to determine the acceptable risk of overfishing, and prioritizing the use of stock rebuilding plans for overfished stocks.

The ABC Control Rule Amendments and this final rule will modify the framework procedures in the Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs to allow for the future transfer, if pre-qualifying criteria are met, of an unharvested portion of a stock, total, or sector-specific ACL to the following fishing year (details are described in the Allow Carry-Over of Unharvested Portion of ACLs section of this final rule).

The revised FMP framework procedures implemented by this final rule will allow for the potential carry-over of an ACL in future management actions. Before NMFS can implement an ACL carry-over, other preceding steps by the Council, SSC, and NMFS must occur.

First, a future stock assessment must be conducted to determine if a species is eligible for carry-over and specify the appropriate catch level based on the criteria contained in the applicable ABC control rule. Then, the SSC would determine and recommend an ABC to the Council and the Council would develop an FMP amendment or framework action for the species that includes the option of ACL carry-over. If the related rulemaking was implemented by NMFS, then that species would be eligible for future carry-over through a subsequent action under the abbreviated framework procedures described in this final rule. To support potential carry-over justification, a Term of Reference will be added to each future stock assessment to project the maximum amount of landings beyond the ABC that could be carried over in 1 year while not resulting in overfishing or the stock becoming overfished within the projection period.

When the Council develops a subsequent fishery management action in response to a stock assessment to specify or revise an ABC and ACL for a stock or sector, the Council will determine whether carry-over will be authorized if annual conditions cause a stock ACL or sector ACL to qualify for carry-over. In doing so, the Council will consider the potential need for, and benefits of, carry-over for a stock that could become eligible according to criteria specified in the ABC control rule. The Council will also consider the duration of time when the specified ABC and ACL are effective. An FMP amendment or framework action that specifies carry-over for a stock or sector will include analysis of the relevant biological, economic, and social information necessary to meet the criteria and guidance of the ABC control rule.

Following the conclusion of each fishing year, Council staff will notify the Council if any stocks and sectors for which carry-over is approved qualify based on the previous year's landings, including preliminary landings estimates from the previous year if those landings data are not yet finalized. If a stock or sector qualifies for carry-over according to specifications of the ABC recommended by the SSC and annual landings meet criteria specified in the ABC control rule, NMFS will implement carry-over of eligible landings from the previous year via a temporary rule published in the Federal Register through the existing FMP framework procedure and rulemaking process.

The ACL carry-over procedure for eligible fish stocks or fishery sectors generally will not require additional advisory panel (AP) input or SSC recommendation, because input relevant to an ABC being approved with potential for ACL carry-over will be part of the prior development process for the FMP amendment or framework in which the ABC and ACL for a stock or sector are already specified. Application of the carry-over procedure is expected to be routine and formulaic.

The NMFS Regional Administrator (RA) will review any Council recommendations for carry-over and supporting information. If the RA concurs that the Council's recommendations are consistent with the objectives of the applicable FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and all other applicable law, the RA will be authorized to implement the Council's proposed action through publication of appropriate notification in the Federal Register .

If the Council chooses to deviate from the criteria and guidance of the ABC control rules, this abbreviated process will not apply.

Further details of the process can be found in section 2.4.1 and Appendix J of the ABC Control Rule Amendments. An example of the carry-over can be found in Appendix H of the ABC Control Rule Amendments.

The new process will allow ACL carry-overs to occur in a more timely manner than that of an FMP amendment or framework action. A faster process is necessary due to the year-to-year nature of carry-overs. Under-harvest of an ACL may only be carried over in the immediate next year. Therefore, defining a stock's eligibility and the amount of ACL being carried over must occur quickly enough such that the fishery has time to harvest the carried over amount within the fishing year following a year of under-harvest. The process also provides the Council discretion in determining whether carry-over should be applied to a potentially eligible stock when setting the ABC and ACL.

It is important to note that this final rule will not change current ABCs or ACLs for any species managed under the FMPs affected by the ABC Control Rule Amendments. This rule makes no other substantive changes to the current framework procedures in the Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs.

In addition to the regulatory language within this final rule, the ABC Control Rule Amendments contain more specific provisions that modify the ABC control rules, allow the phasing in of ABC changes, and allow carry-over of unharvested portion of the ACL, for Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs.

The ABC Control Rule Amendments will modify the ABC control rules for the Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs by categorizing stocks based on the available information, scientific uncertainty evaluation, and incorporation of the Council's risk tolerance policy through an accepted P*. The Council will specify the P* based on relative stock biomass and a stock risk rating. When possible, the SSC will determine the OFL and characterize its uncertainty based primarily on the stock assessment and secondarily on the SSC's expert opinion. The SSC will then use the OFL and its uncertainty to derive and recommend the ABC to the Council, based on the risk tolerance specified by the Council. The detailed step-by-step procedure detailing how the ABC is derived for assessed stocks can be found in section 2.1.1 of the ABC Control Rule Amendments. ABC for unassessed stocks will be recommended by the SSC based on applicable data-limited methods. Unassessed stocks will be assigned the moderate biomass level unless there is a recommendation from the SSC that justifies assignment of a different level. For overfished stocks, the Council will specify a stock rebuilding plan, considering recommendations from the SSC and the AP of the respective FMP. The ABC enacted while the rebuilding plan is in effect will be based on recommendations from the Council's SSC. The probability of success for rebuilding plans (1 minus P*) will be at least 50 percent. Control rule categories for assessments are described in detail in Table 2.1.1.2 of the ABC Control Rule Amendments.

In summary, four categories in the revised ABC control rules will facilitate an ABC determination based on scientific uncertainty and SSC guidance. The Council, with advice from the SSC and AP, will evaluate management risk for each stock through a stock risk rating. Stock risk ratings include information already used in the productivity and susceptibility analysis (PSA), but also incorporate socio-economic (for example, potential for discard losses, annual commercial value, recreational desirability, etc. ) and environmental attributes (for example, climate change) (see Appendix E of the ABC Control Rule Amendments for more details). These recommendations will be revisited when new information becomes available (for example, a new stock assessment). The Council will then specify the risk rating as low, medium, or high risk of overfishing. A higher risk of overfishing will indicate that risk tolerance ( i.e., the accepted probability of overfishing) should be lower. These stock risk ratings, along with relative biomass levels, will be used to determine the Council's default risk tolerance for each stock. Default P* values based on relative biomass and stock risk rating are shown in Table 2.1.1.3 of the ABC Control Rule Amendments. As an example, a stock with high biomass and medium stock risk rating will have a P* of 45 percent. This will be lower than the OFL, in accordance with Magnuson-Stevens Act. The SSC can recommend the Council reconsider the stock risk rating. This could happen, for example, with the emergence of new scientific studies or new information discovered through a stock assessment.

The modified ABC control rules will also allow the Council to deviate, to a greater or lesser amount, from the default accepted probability of overfishing by up to 10 percent for an individual stock, based on its expert judgment, new information, or recommendations by the SSC or other expert advisors. Accepted probability of overfishing may not exceed 50 percent. Using a 50 percent probability of overfishing implies negligible scientific uncertainty and sets OFL equal to ABC. At P* equals 0.50, removals above ABC caused by deviations in biological parameters (for example, natural mortality (M), recruitment) could cause an overfishing determination and delay rebuilding plans. Therefore, adjusting P* above the value recommended by the SSC will be infrequent and well justified based on new scientific understanding and the Council's risk tolerance. Additionally, when requested by the Council, the SSC will recommend the ABC for up to 5 years as both a constant value across years and as individual annual values for the same period of years. These options provide more flexibility to both the Council and SSC in the ABC determination.

The ABC Control Rule Amendments does not change the current ABC levels for any species managed under the Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs. Modifying the ABC control rules as specified will give the SSC the ability to recommend adjusting or deriving uncertainty of future assessment results (ultimately impacting projections of future catch) if they determine uncertainty is not adequately estimated through information used in the assessment. Evaluation of risk tolerance will also be improved by considering factors beyond the current PSA and expanding the range of reference points used to describe and incorporate relative biomass. For unassessed stocks, the modifications will expand the number of methods that could be considered for estimating OFL and ABC. The addition of economic factors in the ABC control rules will allow the Council to better consider the long-term economic implications when examining management risk, which could lead to better economic outcomes and increase net economic benefits in a fishery for a given species. The inclusion of social factors in the ABC control rules will allow the Council to directly consider the importance of a given species to fishing communities and businesses when determining risk tolerance and will have long-term social benefits in the form of a more appropriate ABC.

Currently, the phase-in of ABC changes is not allowed in the Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs. The ABC Control Rule Amendments will establish criteria specifying when the phase-in of ABC changes will be allowed and specify the approach for the phase-in of ABC changes.

The ABC Control Rule Amendments will allow the phase-in of increases to ABC as specified by the Council, with advice from the SSC and AP. Increases to ABC (assuming the presence of comparable data between assessments) are generally indicative of an increase in relative biomass and improving stock condition. The revised approach in the ABC Control Rule Amendments allows greater consideration of ecological, social, and economic effects of an increased ABC, and increased flexibility in how that change can be implemented. Because ABCs during an increasing phase-in will be less than those initially recommended by the SSC, the phase-in period is not limited ( i.e., it can exceed the maximum timeframe specified for the phase-in decreases). The Council may specify ABC to be less than the SSC's recommended ABC, but it may not exceed the SSC's recommendation. Phasing in an ABC increase will set ABC below the SSC's recommendation. If the phase-in is included in projections used to develop the SSC's ABC recommendation, there also may be an increase to the recommended long-term ABC ( i.e., the ABC that persists after the phase-in is complete). Thus, phasing in increases to ABC over a longer time period could result in a greater increase to long-term ABC, and phasing in increases over a shorter period could result in a smaller increase to long-term ABC.

The ABC Control Rule Amendments will allow the phase-in of decreases to ABC when a new ABC is less than 80 percent of the existing ABC, and over a period not to exceed 3 years, which is the maximum phase-in period allowed by the NS1 guidelines. The criterion requiring a minimum threshold of difference between the current and new ABCs to be 20 percent defines a significant enough change to merit phasing in the change and is more flexible than other minimum threshold levels considered in the ABC Control Rule Amendments. The Council will consider whether to apply a phase-in on a case-by-case basis when specifying a stock ABC through an FMP amendment after a new ABC has been recommended by the SSC. A longer phase-in period provides more flexibility and allows a more gradual change from the existing ABC to the new ABC.

The phase-in of the ABC is an option the Council can consider to address the social and economic effects from management changes. Adopting this flexibility does not require the Council to phase in all ABC changes, nor does adopting one approach for one stock prevent the Council from choosing a more restrictive schedule of ABC phase-ins (less than 3 years) for a different stock. When considering whether to phase in an ABC change, the Council will compare the risk to the stock against the expected social and economic benefits of the alternative ABC. Management strategy evaluations may be used to quantify such trade-offs. The Council will be able to consult with its scientific and fishery advisors to help develop a rationale and implementation plan for phase-ins. The phase-in of ABC changes is consistent with the NMFS 2020 guidance and incorporates flexibility as per the revised NS1 guidelines into the FMPs for Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and Dolphin and Wahoo.

Currently, carry-over of unharvested portion of ACLs is not allowed in the Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs. The ABC Control Rule Amendments will establish criteria specifying circumstances when an unharvested portion of the originally specified sector ACL can be carried over from a single fishing year to increase the available harvest in the immediate next year. Carry-overs may not be delayed, and only amounts from the originally specified sector ACL may be carried over. Carry-over of the unharvested portion of a sector ACL will be allowed if:

(1) The stock status is known;

(2) The stock is neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing;

(3) An overfishing limit for the stock is defined;

(4) ABC decreases are not being phased-in;

(5) There are measures that restrict annual landings to the ACL; and

(6) The post-season AM that reduces the ACL in the following year according to any landings overages is in place for that stock and sector.

The ABC Control Rule Amendments also specify limits on how much of the unharvested portion of a sector ACL may be carried over from a single fishing year to increase the sector ACL in the next year. The ABC and the total ACL may be temporarily increased to allow this carry-over. The temporary ABC may not exceed the OFL. The revised total ACL may not exceed the temporary ABC or the total ACL plus the carried over amount, whichever is less. If a stock experiences overfishing, either as the result of a stock assessment or as determined by NMFS' annual evaluation of landings, that stock will no longer qualify for carry-over. Additional conditions to annually qualify for carry-over can be added on a stock-by-stock basis. For example, to prevent overharvest of other species commonly caught with the target species (referred to as co-caught species) during years with a carried-over ACL, a future FMP amendment specifying an ABC and ACL with carry-over could additionally require that the previous year's harvest for co-caught species also be less than or equal to the ACL for carry-over to occur. When applicable, the Council will specify whether fisheries that have split seasons or sub-sector allocations (such as gear allocations) should be eligible for inter-annual carry-over on a case-by-case basis.

Carry-overs will also be sector-specific. The Snapper-Grouper and Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs have both commercial and recreational sectors whereas the Golden Crab FMP includes only a commercial sector. Thus, if only one sector is carrying over unused ACL, the carried-over amount will be allocated only to that sector, subject to limitations defined above. If more than one sector is carrying over unused ACL in the same year, each sector carry-over amount will be completely allocated to the sector from which it was derived, unless the sum of all carry-over amounts plus the specified total ACL is greater than the OFL. In this case, the difference between the temporary revised ABC and the specified total ACL will be allocated using sector allocation percentages specified by the FMP. A revised sector ACL and revised ABC will remain in place for a single fishing year. Following a year that included carry-over, evaluations of carry-over amounts for future years will be based on the ABC and sector ACLs specified by the FMP rather than on the temporarily revised values.

The carry-over criteria and conditions contained in the ABC Control Rule Amendments are consistent with the NMFS 2020 guidance. The carry-over criteria and conditions will also make carry-over applicable to only a few stocks managed by the Council under the Snapper-Grouper FMP at the time this action was developed. However, allowing carry-over does fulfill Federal guidance on carry-overs that requires allowance of this management tool to be included in an FMP, and provide additional management flexibility to better enable harvest of the optimum yield from a healthy stock.

In this final rule, NMFS clarifies existing regulations in 50 CFR 622.194(a) about the scope of allowable management changes using the framework procedure in the Snapper-Grouper FMP. Specifically, NMFS clarifies the allowable changes via framework to essential fish habitat (EFH), EFH habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs), and coral HAPCs.

In 2000, NMFS implemented two final rules that updated the Snapper-Grouper FMP framework procedures to include EFH, EFH HAPCs, and coral HAPCs that enabled more timely implementation of subsequent management measures than is possible via an FMP amendment (65 FR 37292, June 14, 2000; 65 FR 51248, August 23, 2000). Since NMFS implemented those final rules, NMFS has made no other changes to the framework procedure for EFH, EFH HAPCs, and coral HAPCs. Those regulations implemented Council recommendations to allow for the establishment of or modifications to EFH HAPCs or coral HAPCs via framework procedure. However, the rules are overly general and reference both “definitions of EFH” and “EFH,” which could be interpreted as duplicative.

In this final rule, NMFS clarifies the regulations by more clearly describing the existing parameters for EFH, EFH HAPCs, and coral HAPCs that can be changed via framework action. Accordingly, NMFS revises § 622.194(a) without changing the Council's original management recommendations.

NMFS received four comments from individuals during the public comment period on the notice of availability and proposed rule for the ABC Control Rule Amendments. NMFS acknowledges the comment in favor of the actions in the ABC Control Rule Amendments and proposed rule and agrees that the actions will aid in ensuring sustainable fish populations. NMFS received two comments regarding the development of offshore wind infrastructure that were outside the scope of the ABC Control Rule Amendments and the proposed rule and are not responded to in this final rule. One commenter wanted more clarification and made comments for the actions contained in the ABC Control Rule Amendments and the proposed rule, and those comments are summarized below, along with NMFS' responses. The same commenter also expressed an opinion as to how to improve the organization of the discussion presented in Federal Register , to which no response is provided. No changes were made to this final rule as a result of public comment.

Comment 1: Why do changes need to be made to the current framework procedures for the three FMPs regarding biomass levels, age-structure analyses, maximum sustainable yield, etc. ?

Response: This final rule will allow for the carry-over of future ACLs and in a more timely manner and is the only substantive change to the framework procedures for the three FMPs within the scope of this rule. This final rule also clarifies current regulations in 50 CFR 622.194(a) about the scope of allowable management changes using the framework procedure in the Snapper-Grouper FMP as described earlier. This final rule will not change any other regulatory provisions currently included in the framework procedures for the Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, or Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs.

Comment 2: Biological, social, and economic data from all sectors and the analyses are necessary to help guide changes to an ABC and ACL. It would be wise if the Council completed these analyses each year to track the changes in fish, which may be applied to future conservation projects as needed.

Response: NMFS agrees. NMFS and the Council already have an extensive process in place to gather biological, social, and economic data from all sectors, and analyze the effects on any action to change an ABC or ACL. This is done via the amendments to an existing FMP, in consultation with the Council's AP, SSC, NMFS' Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and the public through scoping meetings, public hearings, and public comment opportunities at Council meetings. NMFS reviews and approves the FMP amendments and implements necessary regulations only after ensuring the actions are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and all other applicable laws. NMFS and the Council track landings weekly for the commercial sector and recreational charter vessels and headboats, and every 2 months for the private recreational component, and conduct analyses as necessary. Fishery performance reports are published by the Council after getting extensive feedback from its APs for each FMP, investigating life-history parameters, and landings reports from fishery dependent and independent sources. NMFS and the Council evaluate trends and consider possible changes to the ABC and ACL through amendments to an FMP.

Comment 3: What are the qualifications for including unassessed species in levels 2 through 5? Additionally, would it be possible for the five-star restoration system to be implemented here?

Response: The current ABC control rules contain five levels of conditions, decisions, and processes, involved to set an ABC (see Table 2.1.1.1 in the Comprehensive ABC Control Rule Amendments). Level 1 is for species that have stock assessments (assessed species). Levels 2 through 5 apply to species without a stock assessment (unassessed species), with each level corresponding to a specific data-limited method used to calculate the ABC. Typically, the SSC proceeded sequentially through the levels adopting the first level that was adequate for deriving an ABC for the unassessed stock at issue. This final rule will implement revised ABC control rules by removing levels 1 through 5, and establishing four categories to set an ABC (see Table 2.1.1.2 and Section 2.1.1 in the Comprehensive ABC Control Rule Amendments for more details).

NMFS is unclear what the commenter meant by “the five-star restoration system” and, therefore, cannot provide a response.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the ABC Control Rule Amendments, the Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and Dolphin and Wahoo FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the legal basis for this final rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. A description of this final rule, why it is being considered, and the purpose of this final rule is contained in the SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of the preamble. The objectives of this final rule are to ensure catch level recommendations are based on the best scientific information available, prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield, and include flexibility in setting catch limits as allowed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and in accordance with NMFS' guidance on carry-over and phase-in provisions.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) during the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. NMFS did not receive any comments from SBA's Office of Advocacy or the public regarding the certification in the proposed rule. No changes to this final rule were made in response to public comments. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 622 as follows:

On September 26, 2023, NMFS published a final rule in the Federal Register (88 FR 65819) to implement revisions to greater amberjack management measures contained in Amendment 49 that included, among other actions, regulatory revisions for commercial quotas and commercial trip limits. That final rule became effective on October 26, 2023.

In the regulatory text of the final rule for Amendment 49, NMFS inadvertently neglected to include the pre-existing greater amberjack commercial seasonal quota carryover provision at 50 CFR 622.190(a)(3)(iii) within 50 CFR 622.190(a)(3), when also revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of the section. The text within 50 CFR 622.190(a)(3)(iii) states, “Any unused portion of the quota specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section will be added to the quota specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section. Any unused portion of the quota specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, including any addition of quota specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section that was unused, will become void and will not be added to any subsequent quota.”

The discussions in Amendment 49, as well as the associated proposed and final rules, were clear that for greater amberjack commercial quotas, only the seasonal quota values themselves were to change, not the existing quota carryover provision, and therefore it should have also been included within the rest of the text at 50 CFR 622.190(a)(3). Thus, through this correcting amendment NMFS corrects 50 CFR 622.190 by adding the mistakenly removed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) that was effective and in the regulations prior to the implementation of Amendment 49.

Additionally, in the regulatory text of the final rule for Amendment 49, NMFS inadvertently neglected to include a paragraph heading for greater amberjack within the commercial trip limits at 50 CFR 622.191(a)(5). Amendment 49 revised the greater amberjack trip limit and when drafting the associated regulatory text for that trip limit, NMFS inadvertently did not include “Greater amberjack” as the heading for paragraph (a)(5) of the section. Thus, through this correcting amendment NMFS adds back in the heading of “Greater amberjack” at 50 CFR 622.191(a)(5) that was effective and in the regulations prior to the implementation of Amendment 49.

Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator (AA) has determined that this final rule is consistent with Amendment 49, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the AA finds good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for additional public comment because it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This correcting amendment adds back into the regulations a needed commercial quota provision and a commercial trip limit paragraph heading that were inadvertently not included in the final rule implementing Amendment 49. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The final rules that implemented the erroneously removed codified provisions and the greater amberjack management measures in Amendment 49 were already subject to notice and public comment. Additional opportunity for public comment would delay inclusion of the previously effective commercial quota and trip limit provisions which were inadvertently removed in the regulatory text. Further, this correction will prevent confusion about greater amberjack commercial quota provisions and add clarity to the commercial trip limit regulations.

For the same reasons, the AA also finds good cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day delay in effective date for this correcting amendment.

Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, this rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Accordingly, no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required and none has been prepared.

This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Accordingly, 50 CFR part 622 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) and consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ). HMS implementing regulations are at 50 CFR part 635.

Background information about the need to prohibit the retention and possession of oceanic whitetip sharks in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, and hammerhead sharks (great, smooth, and scalloped hammerhead sharks) in U.S. waters of the Caribbean Sea was provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (88 FR 17171, March 22, 2023) and is not repeated here. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on May 22, 2023. NMFS received 93 written comments as well as oral comments during the public hearing held by webinar on April 25, 2023. The comments received, and the responses to those comments, are summarized in the Response to Comments section. After considering public comments on the proposed rule, NMFS is finalizing the rule as proposed. As described, no changes are made from the proposed rule.

NMFS has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), which analyze the anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of several alternatives considered for this final rule. The full list of alternatives and their analyses are provided in the final EA/RIR/FRFA and are not repeated here. A summary of the FRFA is provided below. A copy of the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this final rule is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

As described in the proposed rule, NMFS issued two BiOps in May 2020: the “Biological Opinion on the Operation of the HMS Fisheries excluding Pelagic Longline” and the “Biological Opinion on the Operation of the HMS Pelagic Longline Fishery,” prepared under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These BiOps concluded consultation on the HMS PLL and non-PLL fisheries, as managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. The BiOps included conservation recommendations for oceanic whitetip shark and the scalloped hammerhead shark Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS that strongly encouraged the inclusion of these federally protected species on the HMS list of prohibited shark species for recreational and/or commercial HMS fisheries.

In order to reduce the mortality of oceanic whitetip sharks and the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks, which are both listed as threatened under the ESA, and implement two conservation recommendations from the May 2020 BiOps, this final rule will add oceanic whitetip shark to the prohibited shark species group, remove oceanic whitetip shark from the list of pelagic indicator species, and prohibit the possession and retention of great, smooth, and scalloped hammerhead sharks in the U.S. Caribbean region. This final rule applies to all HMS permitted fishermen.

Under this final rule, oceanic whitetip sharks are added to the prohibited shark species group using the criteria in 50 CFR 635.34(c). Retention, possession, landing, sale, and purchase of oceanic whitetip sharks or parts of oceanic whitetip sharks are prohibited in all commercial and recreational HMS fisheries in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Oceanic whitetip sharks are also removed from the list of pelagic indicator species (Table 2 to Appendix A to Part 635). Sharks in the prohibited shark species group cannot be possessed or landed and therefore, their presence on board a vessel cannot be considered a useful indicator of a pelagic longline vessel.

Additionally, under this final rule, the possession and retention of hammerhead sharks in the large coastal shark (LCS) complex ( i.e., great, smooth, and scalloped hammerhead sharks) is prohibited in all HMS fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean region, as “Caribbean” is defined at 50 CFR 622.2. Retention of hammerhead sharks is currently not allowed for commercial vessels in the PLL fishery. This final rule prohibits retention and possession of LCS hammerhead sharks for all HMS commercial and recreational permit holders in the U.S. Caribbean region, including in those instances where it was previously authorized ( i.e., recreational permit holders with a shark endorsement when tunas, swordfish, and/or billfish are not retained). Due to the difficulty in differentiating between the various species of LCS hammerhead sharks, this final rule applies to all LCS hammerhead sharks to mitigate the potential for continued mortality of scalloped hammerhead sharks from fishermen either bringing hammerhead sharks on board to identify the species (increasing the likelihood of post-release mortality) or unintentionally retaining a scalloped hammerhead shark due to misidentification.

Written comments can be found at www.regulations.gov; type “NOAA-NMFS-2023-0025” in the Search box (note: copying and pasting the FDMS Docket Number directly from this document may not yield search results). Below, NMFS summarizes and responds to the comments made on the proposed rule during the comment period.

Comment 1: NMFS received many comments in support of the proposed measures for oceanic whitetip sharks (preferred Alternative A2 in the EA for this action). Commenters stated that they supported these measures because oceanic whitetip sharks are listed as threatened under the ESA and endangered on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. Some commenters supported adding oceanic whitetip sharks to the prohibited shark species group to address overfishing concerns and promote population recovery of an apex predator that is critical for marine ecosystem health.

Response: NMFS agrees that these measures will reduce mortality of oceanic whitetip sharks and promote the conservation and recovery of this threatened species.

Regarding the IUCN Red List status of oceanic whitetip sharks, NMFS scientists participate in species assessments for the Red List, but NMFS does not base management actions on IUCN designations. The IUCN uses different criteria. NMFS adheres to ESA-applicable criteria for determining whether a species is threatened or endangered. NMFS determines whether stocks are overfished or overfishing is occurring pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Comment 2: Several commenters supported the proposed measures for LCS hammerhead sharks (preferred Alternative B4 in the EA for this action). However, many of those commenters stated that the prohibition on possession and retention of LCS hammerhead sharks should be extended to all Federal waters of the northwest Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. One commenter specifically stated that all hammerhead sharks should be added to the prohibited shark species group. Reasons that commenters provided for expanding the proposed measures include: great and smooth hammerhead sharks have an unknown stock status in the Atlantic Ocean but evidence suggests that populations are in decline; scalloped hammerhead sharks are overfished with overfishing occurring; scalloped hammerhead sharks from the Central and Southwest DPS likely cross into the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico where they could be legally possessed and retained; fishing vessels from outside U.S. waters of the Caribbean Sea could possess and retain hammerhead sharks as long as they are landed outside of the U.S. Caribbean Exclusive Economic Zone; hammerhead sharks are threatened by global fishing pressure and are listed as critically endangered (scalloped and great hammerhead sharks) or vulnerable (smooth hammerhead shark) by the IUCN on its Red List; and hammerhead sharks are particularly susceptible to post-release mortality as bycatch in commercial fisheries and through targeted catch-and-release fishing in the recreational fishery.

Response: NMFS disagrees that the retention and possession of LCS hammerhead sharks should be prohibited in all Federal waters of the northwest Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Only the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks is listed as threatened under the ESA, and prohibiting the retention and possession of LCS hammerhead sharks outside U.S. waters of the Caribbean would unnecessarily limit retention of hammerhead sharks that are still authorized for commercial and recreational HMS fisheries in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.

In Federal waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, only scalloped hammerhead sharks have a determination of overfished with overfishing occurring, based on a stock assessment that was determined to be the best scientific information available by NMFS. The stock statuses for great and smooth hammerhead sharks are unknown. However, all hammerhead shark species (great, smooth, and scalloped) are currently being assessed through the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) stock assessment process (SEDAR 77). SEDAR is the process by which most domestic Atlantic shark stocks are assessed. While SEDAR 77 has not yet been finalized, initial analyses indicate that great hammerhead sharks are likely overfished but not experiencing overfishing, smooth hammerhead sharks are likely not experiencing overfishing, and scalloped hammerhead sharks are likely not overfished and not experiencing overfishing. Once the assessment is complete (expected in 2024), NMFS will consider management measures for these species, as appropriate.

Regarding the IUCN Red List status of great, smooth, and scalloped hammerhead sharks, NMFS does not base management actions on IUCN designations, as previously stated.

Regarding concern about retention of the Central and Southwest DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks in the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, encountering scalloped hammerhead sharks from the Central and Southwest DPS in these areas would be extremely unlikely, as they are outside of the DPS boundary. In 2014, NMFS conducted a status review report in response to a petition to list the scalloped hammerhead shark under the ESA (Miller et al. 2014). During that analysis, NMFS determined that the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks have genetic differences that indicate they are isolated from other Atlantic subpopulations. Additionally, general tagging studies and genetic analyses suggest that scalloped hammerhead sharks do not travel over open ocean but make limited migrations along coastlines, continental margins, and submarine features. There was no observed mixing of the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS with the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico population.

Under the final measures, the possession and retention of LCS hammerhead sharks would be prohibited in all HMS fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean region. Fishermen that possess and retain hammerhead sharks in U.S. waters of the Caribbean Sea would be in violation of the regulations, even if they land the sharks outside of the U.S. Caribbean region.

Regarding concern about hammerhead shark sensitivity to post-release mortality, there are limited direct estimates of total discard mortality for hammerhead sharks. However, evidence suggests that hammerhead sharks are vulnerable to the effects of capture in commercial and recreational fisheries. According to preliminary data from the SEDAR 77 hammerhead shark stock assessment, the assumed total discard mortality rate (defined as the immediate plus delayed discard-mortality rate resulting from the fishing event) for great hammerhead sharks is 41.9 percent in commercial bottom longline (BLL) fisheries and 20 percent in recreational fisheries; for smooth hammerhead sharks is 41.5 percent in commercial gillnet fisheries; and for scalloped hammerheads is 87.5 percent in commercial purse seine fisheries.

NMFS believes that prohibiting the possession and retention of all LCS hammerhead sharks in the U.S. Caribbean region will reduce the likelihood of post-release mortality because fishermen will not need to bring them on board for species identification. Because fishermen would be unable to target LCS hammerhead sharks, fishermen would be prohibited from bringing them onboard the vessel and must release them in the water, in a manner that maximizes survival, thereby reducing post-release mortality. While the management measures are not expected to substantially alter current fishing practices or bycatch mortality rates, because LCS hammerhead sharks cannot be targeted, lower rates of bycatch would reduce the rate of mortality.

Regarding the prohibited shark species group, NMFS does not agree that all hammerhead sharks should be added to the prohibited shark species group. NMFS may add a species to the prohibited shark species group if the species is determined to meet at least two of the four criteria at 50 CFR 635.34(c): (1) biological information indicates that the stock warrants protection; (2) information indicates that the species is rarely encountered or observed caught in HMS fisheries; (3) information indicates that the species is not commonly encountered or observed caught as bycatch in fishing operations for species other than HMS; and (4) the species is difficult to distinguish from other prohibited species.

Regarding the first and fourth criteria, the scalloped hammerhead shark Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS is listed as a threatened species under the ESA, and distinguishing hammerhead sharks from each other is quite difficult even for the most seasoned fishermen. However, at this time, NMFS has decided not to add scalloped hammerhead sharks to the prohibited shark species group since only two scalloped hammerhead DPSs are designated as “threatened” under the ESA; only one DPS occurs in U.S. waters; and adding the sharks to the group would unnecessarily limit retention of hammerhead sharks that are still authorized for commercial and recreational HMS fisheries in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the second and third criteria are not met by scalloped hammerhead sharks. This species is encountered and observed caught in HMS fisheries. From 2017 through 2021, there was an annual average of 16,170 pounds dressed weight (lb dw) of scalloped hammerhead sharks landed in the commercial sector in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Moreover, this species is also encountered and observed as bycatch in fishing operations for species other than HMS, for example, in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico gillnet fishery.

Great hammerhead sharks and smooth hammerhead sharks meet only one of the four criteria at 50 CFR 635.34(c), which would not warrant addition to the prohibited shark species group at this time. Regarding the fourth criterion, distinguishing hammerhead sharks from each other is quite difficult even for the most seasoned fishermen. However, the first, second, or third criteria are not met by great or smooth hammerhead sharks. These species are not listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, and, initial analyses from an ongoing stock assessment (SEDAR 77, not yet final) indicate that great hammerhead sharks are likely overfished but not experiencing overfishing, and smooth hammerhead sharks are likely not experiencing overfishing. Additionally, they are encountered and observed caught in HMS fisheries. From 2017 through 2021, there was an average of 321,653 lb dw of hammerhead sharks landed in the commercial sector in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Moreover, these species are encountered and observed as bycatch in fishing operations for species other than HMS, for example, in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico gillnet fishery.

Comment 3: One commenter stated that NMFS should specify and implement additional catch monitoring and reporting measures to collect accurate and precise oceanic whitetip shark and hammerhead shark catch and bycatch information. Suggested measures include improving recreational catch data, enhancing commercial monitoring, and creating a public reporting portal for recreational and commercial fisheries.

Response: NMFS does not agree with adopting additional catch monitoring and reporting requirements in this action, as the purpose of this action is to reduce the mortality of oceanic whitetip sharks and the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks. However, NMFS may consider additional or revised reporting requirements in future rulemakings. For example, NMFS recently announced an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to modify or expand reporting requirements for HMS (88 FR 30699, May 12, 2023). The comment period on the ANPR ended on August 18, 2023. NMFS is currently reviewing the comments received and determining next steps.

Comment 4: One commenter suggested that NMFS should require full-chain traceability for all catches of oceanic whitetip sharks and hammerhead sharks through the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) and the Food and Drug Administration traceability rules, in order to close a loophole for any illegal catch of oceanic whitetip sharks and hammerhead sharks.

Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The purpose of this action is to reduce the mortality of oceanic whitetip sharks and the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks. NMFS notes that sharks are subject to SIMP's data reporting requirements at the time of entry for imported fish or fish products and recordkeeping requirements for fish and fish products entered into U.S. commerce. See 50 CFR 300.324. For more information on SIMP, please refer to the website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/international/seafood-import-monitoring-program.

Comment 5: One commenter stated that NMFS should improve coordination across NMFS divisions and other agencies to improve the effectiveness of various national and international safeguards for oceanic whitetip sharks and hammerhead sharks.

Response: NMFS agrees that coordination is crucial for the effective management of HMS fisheries, including those for oceanic whitetip and hammerhead sharks. NMFS works closely with our partners, including the U.S. Department of State and other Federal partners, to promote global shark conservation and management.

Comment 6: One commenter urged NMFS to take several additional measures to address non-lethal and lethal take from bycatch in commercial fisheries and intentional targeting by recreational catch-and-release fishing. Specifically, they stated that the proposed measures would not address fishing-related mortality as a result of bycatch and post-release mortality in catch-and-release fishing. Because hammerhead sharks are especially prone to stress, injury, and death after release, allowing the intentional take of the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks (as a result of post-release mortality in catch-and-release fishing) is not consistent with NMFS' obligations under the ESA.

Response: NMFS does not agree that additional measures to address take are necessary. HMS fisheries, including recreational catch-and-release fishing, are consistent with the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions specified in the 2020 BiOps. Additionally, measures being finalized with this rule are in furtherance of conservation recommendations related to scalloped hammerhead DPSs. If determinations for this species under the ESA were to change, NMFS would reconsider appropriate management measures at that time.

Recreational and commercial interactions with hammerhead sharks in the U.S. Caribbean region, and the risk of post-release mortality of the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks, are relatively low. According to recreational catch data, the last reported encounter with a hammerhead shark in the U.S. Caribbean region was in 2016, and before that, it was in 2012. This suggests that interactions between recreational anglers and hammerhead sharks in the Caribbean is rare. Additionally, according to commercial catch data, scalloped hammerhead sharks account for little to none of the landings in the U.S. Caribbean region. Because the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks is only found in U.S. waters of the Caribbean Sea, commercial and recreational interactions with hammerhead sharks are relatively low in this region, and the commercial and recreational possession and retention of hammerhead sharks is now prohibited through this action, NMFS considers the risk of recreational post-release mortality of hammerhead sharks to be minimal. Even if the species is caught in the U.S. Caribbean and not reported, NMFS would also expect the risk of recreational post-release mortality to be minimal given the handgears used in the region, which are generally associated with a low risk of mortality. As stated above, preliminary data from the SEDAR 77 hammerhead shark stock assessment assume total discard mortality rate (defined as the immediate plus delayed discard-mortality rate resulting from the fishing event) for hammerhead sharks is 20 percent in recreational fisheries.

Comment 7: One commenter stated that a prohibition on the retention and possession of all hammerhead sharks in the Atlantic Ocean would bring Federal regulations into alignment with Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs), specifically the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, and Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.

Response: Current HMS regulations, as amended by this rule, are consistent with RFMO measures. Notably, in 2011, NMFS implemented ICCAT Recommendation 10-08 that prohibited the retention, transshipping, landing, storing, or selling of hammerhead sharks in the family Sphyrnidae (except bonnethead sharks) caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, and Indian Ocean Tuna Commission address conservation and management in the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean, not the Atlantic Ocean.

Comment 8: One commenter stated that prohibiting the retention of hammerhead sharks in the Atlantic Ocean prior to the completion of a stock assessment would be premature and in conflict with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Response: Consistent with relevant conservation recommendations from two BiOps, the final measures for hammerhead sharks are limited to the U.S. Caribbean region, and do not apply in other Federal waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico. Although only the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks is threatened under the ESA, the final measures apply to great and smooth hammerhead sharks in the U.S. Caribbean region due to the difficulty in differentiating between the various species of hammerhead sharks. As previously stated, all hammerhead shark species are being assessed through SEDAR 77. Once that stock assessment is completed, NMFS will consider management measures for these species, if appropriate.

Comment 9: One commenter asked why the proposed measures are limited to Federal waters of the Atlantic Ocean and not the Pacific Ocean.

Response: The BiOps that provided conservation recommendations for oceanic whitetip shark and the scalloped hammerhead shark Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS were for the HMS PLL and non-PLL fisheries. These fisheries operate in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, and subject to management under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. Shark species found in U.S. waters of the Pacific Ocean are subject to management under different FMPs.

Comment 10: NMFS received several comments requesting a prohibition on all shark fishing given the important role sharks play in marine ecosystem health.

Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The purpose of this action is to reduce the mortality of oceanic whitetip sharks and the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks, which are both listed as threatened under the ESA. This action does not change the regulations and management measures currently in place that govern commercial shark fishing in Federal waters of the northwest Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea.

Comment 11: NMFS received numerous comments regarding concern for sharks in general. Additionally, some commenters urged NMFS to identify breeding grounds and nursery habitats for all Atlantic sharks to inform effective management measures and stress the importance of safe handling and release protocols.

Response: All of these comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The purpose of this action is to reduce the mortality of oceanic whitetip sharks and the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks, which are both listed as threatened under the ESA. Information about the issues raised in these public comments can be found in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments and the annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report (see ADDRESSES ).

NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to section 304(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the final rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

A FRFA was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A summary is provided below.

Section 604(a)(1) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to state the need for, and objective of, the final action. This action is needed to be responsive to two 2020 BiOps under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA which addressed the Atlantic HMS PLL and non-PLL fisheries, as managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. The BiOps strongly encouraged the inclusion of these federally protected species on the HMS list of prohibited shark species for HMS recreational and/or commercial HMS fisheries. This action is consistent with the management goals and objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 2020 BiOps, and other applicable law.

The objective of this action is to reduce mortality of oceanic whitetip sharks and the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks, both listed as threatened under the ESA. This action would promote the conservation and recovery of these threatened species.

Section 604(a)(2) of the RFA requires a summary of significant issues raised by the public in response to the IRFA, a summary of the agency's assessment of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the rule as a result of the comments. NMFS received 93 written comments on the proposed rule and Draft EA during the public comment period. A summary of those comments and the agency's responses are described above. None of the comments received referred to the IRFA or the economic impacts of the rule.

Section 604(a)(3) of the RFA requires the agency to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made in the rule as a result of such comments. NMFS did not receive any comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA in response to the proposed rule. Additionally, none of the public comments received referred to the economic impacts of the proposed rule.

Section 604(a)(4) of the RFA requires agencies to provide descriptions of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. NMFS established a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA compliance purposes. The SBA has established size standards for all other major industry sectors in the United States, including the scenic and sightseeing transportation (water) sector (NAICS code 487210), which includes for-hire (charter/party boat) fishing entities. The SBA has defined a small entity under the scenic and sightseeing transportation (water) sector as one with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $14 million.

NMFS considers all HMS permit holders, both commercial and for-hire, to be small entities because they had average annual receipts of less than their respective sector's standard of $11 million and $14 million. Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the final measures, the average revenue for the entire Atlantic shark commercial fishery from 2017 through 2021 is $2,579,228, which is well below the NMFS small business size standard for commercial fishing businesses of $11 million.

The final rule would apply to the 206 Shark Directed permit holders, 241 Shark Incidental permit holders, 76 HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit holders, 4,175 HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders, 23,607 HMS Angling permit holders, and 603 Atlantic Tunas General category and Swordfish General Commercial permit holders. The HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders have 2,994 shark endorsements and 1,873 commercial sale endorsements; the HMS Angling permit holders have 12,978 shark endorsements; and the Atlantic Tunas General category and Swordfish General Commercial permit holders have 388 shark endorsements. In the U.S. Caribbean specifically, this rule would apply to 27 Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit holders, 49 HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders, 12 Swordfish General Commercial permit holders, and 93 Atlantic Tunas General category permit holders. NMFS has determined that the final rule would not likely affect any small governmental jurisdictions, nor would there be disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities.

Section 604(a)(5) of the RFA requires agencies to describe any new reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. The action does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, or record-keeping requirements.

Section 604(a)(6) of the RFA requires agencies to describe the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

As described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives in this final rulemaking, and provides rationales for identifying the preferred alternatives to achieve the desired objectives. The FRFA assumes that each vessel will have similar catch and gross revenues to show the relative impact of the final action on vessels.

Alternative A1, the No Action alternative, would continue to allow commercial permit holders issued a Shark Directed or Incidental limited access permit (LAP) using authorized gear (excluding PLL gear) and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a commercial sale endorsement the opportunity to land and sell oceanic whitetip sharks when tuna or tuna-like species are not retained, possessed, on board, or offloaded from, the vessel on the same trip. Vessels fishing recreationally would continue to have the ability to retain oceanic whitetip sharks when tuna or tuna-like species are not possessed on the same recreational trip. This alternative would not result in any additional economic impacts for HMS permit holders, and would have neutral economic impacts on the small entities participating in the fishery.

Alternative A2, the preferred alternative, will add oceanic whitetip sharks to the prohibited shark species group using the criteria in § 635.34(c) to prohibit the commercial and recreational retention of oceanic whitetip sharks in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. This alternative is consistent with the relevant conservation recommendations from both of the 2020 BiOps. From 2017 through 2021, there have been few instances of oceanic whitetip sharks being retained in HMS commercial or recreational shark fisheries in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. This alternative could limit fishing opportunities and lead to fewer fishing trips for charter/headboat operators. However, oceanic whitetip sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable target species. Overall, this alternative would have minor adverse social and economic impacts on the small entities participating in the fishery.

Under Alternative B1, the No Action alternative, retention of scalloped hammerhead sharks on vessels targeting tunas, swordfish, and/or billfish with PLL gear on board would continue to be prohibited. Commercial permit holders issued a Shark Directed or Incidental LAP and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a commercial sale endorsement using other authorized gear that do not target tuna and tuna-like species ( e.g., BLL, gillnet, rod and reel, handline, and bandit gear) would still be authorized to fish for, and land scalloped hammerhead sharks subject to existing commercial regulations. This alternative would not result in any change fishing effort, and would have neutral economic impacts on the small entities participating in the fishery.

Under Alternative B2, NMFS would prohibit the commercial and recreational retention of scalloped hammerhead sharks for shark commercial and recreational permit holders fishing within the U.S. Caribbean region. This alternative would be consistent with the relevant conservation recommendations from both the 2020 BiOps. Between 2017 and 2021, there were no reported commercial landings of scalloped hammerhead sharks in the U.S. Caribbean region and, therefore, it is unlikely revenue would be lost from prohibiting retention of this species. There could be some minor costs associated with discarding or avoiding scalloped hammerhead sharks within that region. Also, this alternative could limit fishing opportunities and lead to fewer fishing trips for charter/headboat operators. This alternative would have neutral to minor adverse economic impacts on the small entities participating in the fishery.

Under Alternative B3, NMFS would prohibit the commercial and recreational retention of scalloped hammerhead sharks for commercial and recreational permit holders fishing within U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. This alternative would be consistent with the relevant conservation recommendations from both of the 2020 BiOps. On average, from 2017 through 2021, scalloped hammerhead sharks contributed $10,753 of revenue in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shark fisheries combined. This equates to less than one percent of the total revenue from all shark fisheries. There could be some minor costs associated with discarding or avoiding scalloped hammerhead sharks. Additionally, this alternative could limit fishing opportunities and lead to fewer fishing trips for charter/headboat operators and therefore, this alternative would have minor adverse economic impacts on the small entities participating in the fishery.

Under Alternative B4, the preferred alternative, NMFS will prohibit the commercial and recreational retention of all LCS hammerhead sharks for commercial and recreational permit holders fishing within the U.S. Caribbean region. This alternative is consistent with the relevant conservation recommendations from both of the 2020 BiOps. Between 2017 and 2021, there were no reported commercial landings of hammerhead sharks in the U.S. Caribbean region and therefore it is unlikely revenue would be lost from prohibiting these species. There could be some minor costs associated with discarding or avoiding hammerhead sharks within that region. Also, this alternative could limit fishing opportunities and lead to fewer fishing trips for charter/headboat operators targeting hammerhead sharks. Thus, this alternative would have minor adverse economic impacts on the small entities participating in the Caribbean fisheries. However, NMFS prefers Alternative B4 at this time, because it will implement the relevant conservation recommendations from the 2020 BiOps, while not limiting fishing opportunities for hammerhead sharks in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean.

Under Alternative B5, NMFS would prohibit the commercial and recreational retention of all LCS hammerhead sharks for commercial and recreational permit holders fishing within U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. This alternative would be consistent with the relevant conservation recommendations from both the 2020 BiOps. On average, from 2017 through 2021, LCS hammerhead sharks contributed $42,794 of revenue in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shark fisheries combined. This equates to less than 2 percent of the total revenue from all shark fisheries. There could be some minor costs associated with discarding or avoiding hammerhead sharks. Additionally, this alternative could limit fishing opportunities and lead to fewer fishing trips for charter/headboat operators and therefore, this alternative would have minor adverse economic impacts on the small entities participating in the fishery.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a web page that also serves as small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. This final rule and the guide are available on the HMS Management Division website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/retention-prohibition-oceanic-whitetip-sharks-us-atlantic-waters-and-hammerhead-sharks-us or by contacting Ann Williamson at ann.williamson@noaa.gov or 301-427-8503.

This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended as follows:

Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.111. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102 and final 2023 allocations were published on January 3, 2023 (88 FR 11).

The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery FMP, as published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a mechanism for transferring summer flounder commercial quota from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider three criteria in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations: (1) the transfer or combinations would not preclude the overall annual quota from being fully harvested; (2) the transfer addresses an unforeseen variation or contingency in the fishery; and (3) the transfer is consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Regional Administrator has determined these three criteria have been met for the transfer approved in this notification.

Massachusetts is transferring 25,000 pounds (lb; 11,340 kilograms (kg)) to Rhode Island through a mutual agreement between the states. This transfer was requested to ensure Rhode Island would not exceed its 2023 quota. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2023 are Massachusetts, 1,334,363 lb (605,257 kg), and Rhode Island, 2,255,478 lb (1,023,068 kg).