This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 905 as amended (7 CFR part 905), regulating the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and pummelos grown in Florida. Part 905 (referred to as “the Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers of fresh citrus operating within the area of production, and one public member.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 reaffirms, supplements, and updates Executive Order 12866 and further directs agencies to solicit and consider input from a wide range of affected and interested parties through a variety of means. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have Tribal implications. AMS has determined that this rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, Florida citrus handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate will be applicable to all assessable fruit for the 2023-2024 fiscal period, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 8c(15)(A) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(15)(A)), any handler subject to an order may file with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule increases the assessment rate for Florida citrus handled under the Order from $0.015 per 4/5 -bushel carton or equivalent, the rate that was initially established for the 2018-2019 and subsequent fiscal periods, to $0.02 per 4/5 -bushel carton or equivalent for the 2023-2024 and subsequent fiscal periods.

Sections 905.40 and 905.41 authorize the Committee, with the approval of AMS, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are able to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting, and all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2018-2019 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and AMS approved, an assessment rate of $0.015 per 4/5 -bushel carton or equivalent of citrus. That rate continues in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period until modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to AMS. This rule increases the assessment rate from $0.015 to $0.02 per 4/5 -bushel carton or equivalent of citrus for the 2023-2024 and subsequent fiscal periods.

The Committee met on August 8, 2023, and recommended 2023-2024 fiscal period expenditures of $124,624 and an assessment rate of $0.02 per 4/5 -bushel carton or equivalent of citrus handled for the 2023-2024 and subsequent fiscal periods. In comparison, last period's budgeted expenditures were $122,680. The increased assessment rate of $0.02 is $0.005 higher than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to better align assessment revenue with budgeted expenses. The Committee projects handler receipts of approximately 6,700,000 4/5 -bushel cartons or equivalent of citrus for the 2023-2024 fiscal period, which is higher than the 4,764,544 cartons handled in the 2022-2023 fiscal period.

The total expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2023-2024 fiscal period are approximately $124,624. The major budgeted expenditures include $99,624 for management; $10,000 for auditing; and $5,000 for data from the Division of Fruits and Vegetables. By comparison, budgeted expenditures for these activities in the 2022-2023 fiscal period were $97,680; $10,000; and $5,000, respectively.

At the current assessment rate of $0.015, the expected 6,700,000 4/5 -bushel cartons or equivalent of assessable Florida citrus would generate $100,500 in assessment revenue (6,700,000 cartons multiplied by $0.015 assessment rate), short of the Committee's anticipated expenditures of $124,624 for the 2023-2024 fiscal period. By increasing the assessment rate by $0.005 to $0.02, assessment income will generate $134,000 (6,700,000 cartons multiplied by $0.02 assessment rate) for the 2023-2024 fiscal period. This amount should be appropriate to ensure that the Committee has sufficient revenue to fully fund its recommended 2023-2024 fiscal period budgeted expenditures.

The Committee derived the recommended assessment rate by considering anticipated expenses, an estimated 6,700,000 4/5 -bushel cartons or equivalent of assessable Florida citrus, and the amount of funds available in reserve. Income derived from handler assessments ($134,000) will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses ($124,624). Funds available in the reserve (currently about $165,000) are expected to be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (approximately two fiscal periods' expenses as authorized in § 905.42).

The assessment rate will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or AMS. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. AMS will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2023-2024 budget, and those for subsequent fiscal periods, will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by AMS.

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

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

There are 14 handlers of Florida citrus who are subject to regulation under the Order and approximately 500 citrus producers in the regulated area. At the time this analysis was prepared, the Small Business Administration (SBA) defined small agricultural growers as those having annual receipts of no more than $4,000,000 for orange producers (NAICS code 111310, Orange Groves) or $4,250,000 for other citrus producers (NAICS code 111320, Citrus (except Orange) Groves), and small agricultural service firms, including handlers, are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $34,000,000 (NAICS code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities) (13 CFR 121.201).

According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the weighted average packing house door equivalent price for fresh Florida oranges for the 2022-2023 season was approximately $10.54 per carton with total shipments of around 3,224,000 cartons. Based on this information, the majority of orange handlers have average annual receipts of significantly less than $34,000,000 ($10.54 multiplied by 3,224,000 cartons equals $33,980,960, divided by 14 handlers equals $2,427,211 per handler). The weighted average packing house door price for other Florida citrus for the 2022-2023 season was $19.12 per carton with total shipments of 2,804,000 cartons. Based on this information, the majority of other citrus handlers have average annual receipts of significantly less than $34,000,000 ($19.12 multiplied by 2,804,000 cartons equals $53,612,480, divided by 14 handlers equals $3,829,463 per handler).

In addition, based on the NASS data, the weighted average orange grower price for the 2022-2023 season was estimated at $9.45 per carton of fresh oranges. Based on grower price, shipment data, and the total number of Florida orange growers, the average annual grower revenue is well below $4,000,000 ($9.45 multiplied by 3,224,000 cartons equals $30,466,800, divided by 500 growers equals $60,934 per grower). The weighted average other citrus grower price for the 2022-2023 season was estimated at $16.28 per carton of fresh citrus. Based on grower price, shipment data, and the total number of Florida citrus growers, the average annual grower revenue is well below $4,250,000 ($16.28 multiplied by 2,804,000 cartons equals $45,649,120, divided by 500 growers equals $91,298 per grower). Thus, the majority of Florida citrus handlers and growers may be classified as small entities.

This rule increases the assessment rate for the 2023-2024 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.015 to $0.02 per 4/5 -bushel carton or equivalent of citrus. The Committee recommended 2023-2024 expenditures of $124,624 and an assessment rate of $0.02 per 4/5 -bushel carton. The increased assessment rate of $0.02 is $0.005 more than the previous rate. The quantity of assessable Florida citrus for the 2023-2024 season is estimated at 6,700,000 4/5 -bushel cartons or equivalent. Thus, the $0.02 rate should provide $134,000 in assessment income (6,700,000 cartons multiplied by $0.02 assessment rate). Income derived from handler assessments should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2023-2024 fiscal period include $99,624 for management; $10,000 for auditing; and $5,000 for data from the Division of Fruits and Vegetables. Budgeted expenses for these same items in the 2022-2023 fiscal period were $97,680; $10,000; and $5,000, respectively.

The Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to cover anticipated expenses for the 2023-2024 fiscal period. Shipments for the 2023-2024 season are projected to be 6,700,000 4/5 -bushel cartons or equivalent, about 2 million more than estimated for the previous period. At the current assessment rate of $0.015, assessment income would equal $100,500 (6,700,000 cartons multiplied by $0.015 assessment rate), an amount below the Committee's anticipated expenditures of $124,624 for the 2023-2024 fiscal period. By increasing the assessment rate by $0.005, assessment income will be approximately $134,000 (6,700,000 cartons multiplied by $0.02 assessment rate). This amount should provide sufficient funds to meet anticipated expenses for the 2023-2024 fiscal period.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered maintaining the current assessment rate of $0.015. However, the Committee would need to further draw down reserves to meet its expenses. The Committee had to use some of its reserves in the 2022-2023 fiscal period after a hurricane damaged the crop, and Committee members did not want to utilize additional funds from reserves to meet 2023-2024 expenses. Consequently, the alternative of maintaining the current assessment rate was rejected.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates the average grower price for the 2023-2024 season should be approximately $11.00 per 4/5 -bushel carton or equivalent of citrus. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2023-2024 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue should be about 0.18 percent ($0.02 divided by $11.00 multiplied by 100).

This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are expected to be offset by the benefits derived by the operations of the Order.

The Committee's meetings are widely publicized throughout the Florida citrus industry and all interested persons are invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 8, 2023, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons were invited to submit comments on the proposed rulemaking, including the regulatory impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189 Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements will be necessary as a result of this rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

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

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

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

A proposed rulemaking concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2024 (89 FR 6440). Copies of the proposed rulemaking were also mailed or sent via email to all Florida citrus handlers. The proposal was also made available through the internet by AMS and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending March 4, 2024, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal.

AMS received a total of nine comments during the comment period. Five comments supported the revised assessment rate, two comments opposed the rate, one did not take a position on the proposal, and one did not address the merits of the rule.

Several comments in support of the increased rate included statements that the rate change could be beneficial in accounting for the effects of citrus greening and hurricane damage. Another commenter stated the industry's current situation calls for the decision to use additional funds. One commenter noted that the proposal seemed reasonable as the budgeted expenses are higher than the Committee's revenue.

The two comments opposed to the rule both focused on the potential increase to the price of citrus. One expressed concern that this change would have a negative impact on the larger economies for citrus and citrus products, namely juice, candy, and raw fruit. This commenter also mentioned potential negative impacts on Native American producers.

In previous seasons, the Committee has used reserves to cover some of the shortfalls in administering the program. In their discussion of the budget for the 2023-2024 season, the Committee determined it was in their best interest to make a minor increase to the rate rather than draw down on financial reserves further. The Committee also made this decision as they determined the benefits of the Order outweigh the small increase in the assessment rate.

In addition, this action only applies to the handling of fresh Florida citrus. According to NASS, the fresh segment makes up only about 16 percent of Florida's citrus production. The price of fresh citrus is usually higher than that of fruit being sent to processing. This action, therefore, only applies to a smaller, higher value segment of the industry and should not impact the price of juice or any other processed citrus product.

Regarding the overall concern about the increase in the price of citrus, the Committee made its recommendation with the awareness that the additional cost to handlers may be passed on to growers and consumers. However, this rule only increases the assessment rate by $0.005 per a 4/5 -bushel carton, accounting for an estimated $33,500 increase in assessments for the entire fresh industry. Further, as noted in the final regulatory flexibility analysis, the total assessment rate is equivalent to about 0.18 of a percent of the grower price, and if compared to the anticipated price received by handlers, the percentage would be even smaller. Given these numbers, this change is not expected to result in a significant increase in cost for growers, handlers, or consumers.

One of the commenters in opposition to the rule also suggested there may be an impact on the Seminole Tribe of Florida as they have historically owned citrus groves. The comment stated increasing regulations and adding costs like assessments are potentially limiting factors to Native participation in the industry. AMS spoke with the Committee directly, which had recently contacted the Tribe as a part of its routine outreach. The Tribe confirmed they are completely out of the citrus business and that they did not have concerns with this rulemaking or its potential to limit participation in the industry. AMS therefore determined the assessment rate change will not have an impact on Tribes in the production area. Accordingly, AMS made no changes to the rule based on the comments received.

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

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

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service amends 7 CFR part 905 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 BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2023 (88 FR 87725). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-34, dated May 25, 2023, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive maintenance tasks have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance tasks. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure or degradation of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) and motor brake assembly. A failed or degraded HSTA or motor brake assembly could result in loss of control of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2242.

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

The commenter requested a revision to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to reflect the language from MCAI that more explicitly allows for the use of superseding Temporary Revisions or later revisions. The commenter stated that the proposed phrase, “incorporate the information specified in,” is too open to interpretation.

The FAA partially agrees with the request to revise the proposed language. The phrase “incorporate the information specified” refers to the information stated in the tasks referenced in figures 1 and 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD. As long as the information in the referenced task remains the same, an operator can show compliance with that task without having to obtain an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval. The FAA has revised paragraph (g) of this AD to include “incorporate the information in the tasks specified . . .” to clarify that it's only the information within the task that is mandated to be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program and that as long as that task information doesn't change from the time limit/maintenance check (TLMC) document revision specified in figures 1 and 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD an AMOC is not required.

The commenter requested that the FAA revise figures 1 and 2 to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to reference a general revision of a TLMC instead of a temporary revision. The commenter stated that without the language from the MCAI that states permission to use “or later revision,” the proposed AD would not allow the use of the general revision of the TLMC that contains the task information. The commenter added that an operator would then be required to maintain a copy of the temporary revision and general revisions of the TLMC that are noted in figures 1 and 2 to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.

The FAA provides the following clarification. As previously mentioned, the AD requires that the maintenance or inspection program be revised to incorporate the task information specified in the applicable time TLMC or temporary revision (TR) document. Therefore, as long the information is the same in the general revision of a TLMC as the task information specified in the TR document, an AMOC is not required. The FAA has revised paragraph (g) of this AD for clarification.

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 the following Bombardier service information, which describes new or more restrictive airworthiness limitation maintenance tasks that specify inspection and overhaul of the HSTA and add flight cycle and flight-hour limitations. Note: The asterisk (or “one star”) or double asterisk (“two star”) with the last three digits of the task numbers indicates that the task is an airworthiness limitation task.

• Sections 5-10-20, “Time Limits—Supplementary Limitations,” and 5-10-40, “Certification Maintenance Requirements,” of part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Challenger 350 Time Limits/Maintenance Check, Publication No. CH 350 TLMC, Revision 13, dated June 14, 2022, which include Task 27-40-00-104*, “Restoration (Overhaul) of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA), Part No. C47100-004 and subs,” and Task 27-41-05-104*, “Restoration (Overhaul) of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA), Part No. C47100-004/-005.”

• Sections 5-10-20, “Time Limits—Supplementary Limitations,” and 5-10-40, “Certification Maintenance Requirements,” of part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Challenger 300 Time Limits/Maintenance Check, Publication No. CH 300 TLMC, Revision 23, dated June 14, 2022, which include Task 27-40-00-104*, “Restoration (Overhaul) of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA), Part No. C47100-004 and subs,” and Task 27-41-05-104*, “Restoration (Overhaul) of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA), Part No. C47100-004/-005.”

• Temporary Revision 5-2-31, dated January 31, 2023, which includes Task 27-40-00-108**, “Restoration (Inspection) of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA), Part No. C47100-003 and subs.”

• Temporary Revision 5-2-102, dated January 31, 2023, which includes Task 27-40-00-108**, “Restoration (Inspection) of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA), Part No. C47100-003 and subs.”

These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Centerpointe Model S-58BT, S-58DT,

S-58ET, S-58FT, S-58HT, and S-58JT helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2023 (88 FR 68002). The NPRM was prompted by fatigue cracking that was found on a Model S-58BT helicopter during a preflight inspection. The fatigue cracking was found in the angle supports and cross-members forming the edges of the AGBM. Due to their similarity to the Model S-58BT helicopter, the FAA determined that Centerpointe Model S-58DT, S-58ET, S-58FT, S-58HT, and S-58JT helicopters are also affected by the same unsafe condition. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive FPIs of the AGBM for a crack. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from one commenter, Midwest Helicopter Airways, Inc. (Midwest). Midwest disagrees with the FAA's determination of the unsafe condition in the proposed AD and opines that a supplemental enhanced visual inspection in addition to inspections performed on the AGBM during routine maintenance is sufficient. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Midwest stated its opinion that the root cause for the failure of the AGBM structural member was not a result of fatigue cracking, but was due to improper installation, routing, or securing of an electrical wire. Midwest submitted photos sent from a representative of Centerpointe Aerospace to current S-58T operators that show abrasions in several locations on the failed angle support structure. According to Midwest, these abrasion marks look to be the result of a wire shown in the photos not properly routed or secured, that began to wear into the structural member. Several abrasions can be seen in the photo just above the crack with a larger abrasion being directly at the crack of the structure. Midwest stated that the chafing marks shown in the photos indicate improper installation, routing, or securing of an electrical wire and other damage from unsecured wiring and advises that wire installation requirements regarding chafing on the airframe are specified in the Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices Aircraft Inspection and Repair, FAA Advisory Circular 43.13-1B Chg. I, Chapter 11, Section 8, Paragraph 11.96(q), which states: “Ensure that wires and cables are routed in such a manner that chafing will not occur against the airframe or other components.”

The FAA disagrees with the comments regarding the cause of the unsafe condition as evidence shows that fatigue and not chafing is the root cause of the crack found on the AGBM. Additionally, there are other likely crack initiation points in the structure of the cracked AGBM leg that can be seen in other photos. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Midwest's second comment pertains to compliance with the proposed AD to perform the procedures specified in Centerpointe Aerospace Service Bulletin No. 58B75, dated April 26, 2023 (SB58B75). Midwest states that the proposed AD would require specific procedures to be performed which are outlined in SB58B75; that compliance with the SB would require replacement of the AGBM assembly, if the affected part is cracked; and that replacing the AGBM would remove privileges the maintenance organization and technicians have under their certifications and repair abilities. Midwest further states that SB58B75 does not provide guidance with regards to blending of material, removal of corrosion, or limitations for repair of the AGBM. Additionally, Midwest states that SB58B75 requires a qualified engineer to provide guidance, without explanation of what qualifications must be obtained to determine airworthiness. Midwest then states that SB58B75 does not address preparation of the structure for the inspection to be completed and that this would potentially cause delays in service and additional costs to operators. Instead of compliance with SB58B75, Midwest suggests thoroughly cleaning and conducting a visual inspection for damage to the mounting structure including gouges, dents, deformity, chafing, loose fasteners, and corrosion. If gouging or chafing, caused by plumbing or wiring, are evident, Midwest suggests taking action to remove or reposition the cause of the discrepancy and evaluate the discrepancy of the mount for limitations of wear. In addition, Midwest suggests an enhanced visual inspection using a 10-power magnification device and a bright light to identify potential cracks; primarily inspecting the areas around the fastener holes and attaching hardware. Subsequently, if this visual or enhanced inspection results in a suspected crack, Midwest suggests verifying using an FPI, as specified in SB58B75. Additionally, Midwest states based on the historical data of the S-58T helicopters, that the AGBM is a durable structure, and this unsafe condition is unlikely to exist or develop on any S-58T or similar model helicopter.

The FAA would like to clarify that this AD refers to SB58B75 for the locations of the eight inspection areas only. The AD requires performing an FPI of the areas shown in figures in SB58B75 by a Level II or Level III inspector certified in the FAA-acceptable standards for nondestructive inspection personnel; it is understood that the accomplishment of the FPI must be done with acceptable procedures. An alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD may be requested. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed SB58B75, which specifies procedures for repetitively performing an FPI and reporting the results to the manufacturer. 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.

Where the service information specifies that the initial FPI be performed within 120 days after receipt of the service information, this AD requires the initial FPI to be performed within 250 hours time-in-service. The service information specifies reporting the results of the FPI to the manufacturer, whereas this AD does not.

Where the service information requires compliance with the Procedures in the Accomplishment Instructions specified in the service bulletin, this AD requires accomplishing the Required Actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD using standard procedures and Figures 1A and 1B of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 14 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Performing an FPI of the AGBM takes about 5 work-hours and parts cost $150 for an estimated cost of $575 per helicopter, and $8,050 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

If necessary, replacing an AGBM takes about 41 work-hours and parts cost are approximately $30,000, for an estimated cost of $33,485 per helicopter.

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 Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. ) (CPIA), which implements the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (823 U.N.T.S. 231 (1972)) (Convention), allows for the conclusion of an agreement between the United States and another party to the Convention to impose import restrictions on certain archaeological and ethnological material. Pursuant to the CPIA, the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with the Republic of Tunisia (Tunisia) to impose import restrictions on certain archaeological and ethnological material of Tunisia. This rule announces that the United States is now imposing import restrictions on certain archaeological and ethnological material of Tunisia through February 6, 2029. This period may be extended for additional periods, each extension not to exceed five years, if it is determined that the factors justifying the initial agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists (19 U.S.C. 2602(e); § 12.104g(a) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 12.104g(a))).

Under 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1), the United States must make certain determinations before entering into an agreement to impose import restrictions under 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(2). On September 23, 2020, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, after consultation with and recommendation by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, made the determinations required under the statute with respect to certain archaeological and ethnological material originating in Tunisia that is described in the Designated List set forth below in this document.

These determinations include the following: (1) that the cultural patrimony of Tunisia is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological material representing Tunisia's cultural heritage dating from approximately 200,000 B.C. to A.D. 1750, and ethnological material representing Tunisia's cultural heritage from the Ottoman and early Husseinite periods, ranging in date from approximately A.D. 1574 to 1881 (19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)(A)); (2) that the Tunisian government has taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect its cultural patrimony (19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)(B)); (3) that import restrictions imposed by the United States would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage and remedies less drastic are not available (19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)(C)); and (4) that the application of import restrictions as set forth in this final rule is consistent with the general interests of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes (19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)(D)). The Assistant Secretary also found that the material described in the determinations meets the statutory definition of “archaeological or ethnological material of the State Party” (19 U.S.C. 2601(2)).

On March 16, 2023, the Governments of the United States and Tunisia signed a bilateral agreement, “Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Tunisia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Tunisia” (the Agreement), pursuant to the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(2). The Agreement entered into force on February 6, 2024, following the exchange of diplomatic notes, and enables the promulgation of import restrictions on certain categories of archaeological material ranging in date from approximately 200,000 B.C. to A.D. 1750, as well as certain categories of ethnological material from the Ottoman and early Husseinite periods, ranging in date from approximately A.D. 1574 to 1881. A list of the categories of archaeological and ethnological material subject to the import restrictions is set forth later in this document.

In accordance with the Agreement, importation of material designated below is subject to the restrictions of 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104g(a) and will be restricted from entry into the United States unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met. CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to indicate that these import restrictions have been imposed.

Import restrictions listed at 19 CFR 12.104g(a) are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which an agreement enters into force with respect to the United States. This period may be extended for additional periods of not more than five years if it is determined that the factors which justified the agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists. Therefore, the import restrictions will expire on February 6, 2029, unless extended.

The Agreement between the United States and Tunisia includes, but is not limited to, the categories of objects described in the Designated List set forth below. Importation of material on this list is restricted unless the material is accompanied by documentation certifying that the material left Tunisia legally and not in violation of the export laws of Tunisia.

The Designated List includes archaeological and ethnological material from Tunisia. The archaeological material in the Designated List includes, but is not limited to, objects made of stone, ceramic, metal, bone, ivory, shell and other organic materials, glass, faience, semi-precious stone, painting, plaster, wood, and textiles ranging in date from approximately 200,000 B.C. to A.D. 1750. The ethnological material in the Designated List includes, but is not limited to, architectural elements, manuscripts, and ceremonial, ritual, and funerary objects of the Islamic culture from the Ottoman and early Husseinite periods, ranging in date from approximately A.D. 1574 to 1881. This would exclude Jewish ceremonial or ritual objects. The Designated List is representative only. Any dates and dimensions are approximate.

Approximate chronology of well-known periods and sites:

Archaeological material includes categories of objects from the Stone Age (Paleolithic and Neolithic), Lybic, Phoenician, Punic, Roman, Vandal, Byzantine, Islamic, Ottoman, and early Husseinite periods and cultures, ranging in date from approximately 200,000 B.C. to A.D. 1750.

1. Architectural Elements—This category includes doors, door frames, window fittings, columns, capitals, bases, lintels, jambs, roofs, archways, friezes, pilasters, engaged columns, altars, prayer niches ( mihrabs ), screens, fountains, inlays, and blocks from walls, floors, and ceilings of buildings. Architectural elements may be plain, molded, or carved and are often decorated with motifs and inscriptions. Marble, limestone, sandstone, and gypsum are most commonly used, in addition to porphyry and granite.

2. Mosaics—Floor mosaics are made from stone cut into small bits (tesserae) or glass and laid into a plaster matrix. Wall and ceiling mosaics are made with a similar technique but may include tesserae of both stone and glass. Subjects can include landscapes; scenes of deities, humans, or animals; religious imagery; and activities, such as hunting or fishing. There may also be vegetative, floral, or geometric motifs and imitations of stone.

3. Architectural and Non-Architectural Relief Sculptures—Types include carved slabs with figural, vegetative, floral, geometric, or other decorative motifs, carved relief vases, steles, palettes, and plaques. All types can sometimes be inscribed in various languages, plastered, or painted. Sculptures may be used for architectural decoration, including in religious, funerary ( e.g., grave markers), votive, or commemorative monuments. Marble, limestone, and sandstone are most commonly used.

4. Monuments—Types include votive statues, funerary or votive stelae, and bases and base revetments made of marble, limestone, and other kinds of stone. These may be painted, plastered, carved with relief sculpture, decorated with moldings, and/or carry dedicatory or funerary inscriptions in various languages.

5. Statuary—Types include large-scale representations of deities, humans, animals, or hybrid figures made of marble, limestone, or sandstone. The most common types of statuary are large-scale and free-standing statuary from approximately 1 m to 2.5 m (approximately 3 ft to 8 ft) in height and life-sized portrait busts (head and shoulders of an individual). Statuary figures may be painted.

6. Figurines—Figurines are small-scale representations of deities, humans, or animals made of limestone, calcite, marble, or sandstone.

7. Sepulchers—Types of burial containers include sarcophagi, caskets, reliquaries, and chest urns made of marble, limestone, or other kinds of stone. Sepulchers may be plain or have figural (including those typical of Punic/Phoenician deities such as Tanit and Astarte), geometric, or floral motifs painted on them. They may be carved in relief and/or have decorative moldings.

8. Vessels and Containers—These include bowls, cups, jars, jugs, lamps, flasks, and smaller funerary urns. Funerary urns can be egg-shaped vases with button-topped covers and may have sculpted portraits, painted geometric motifs, inscriptions, scroll-like handles, and/or be ribbed. Vessels and containers can be made of marble, limestone, calcite, or other stone.

9. Furniture—Types include thrones, tables, and beds, from funerary or domestic contexts. Furniture may be made from marble or other stone.

10. Tools and Weapons—Chipped stone types include blades, borers, scrapers, sickles, burins, notches, retouched flakes, cores, arrowheads, cleavers, knives, chisels, and microliths (small stone tools). Ground stone types include grinders ( e.g., mortars, pestles, millstones, whetstones, querns), choppers, spherical-shaped hand axes, hammers, mace heads, and weights. The most commonly used stones are flint, chert, obsidian, and other hard stones.

11. Jewelry—Types include seals, beads, finger rings, and other personal adornment made of marble, limestone, or various semi-precious stones, including rock crystal, amethyst, jasper, agate, steatite, and carnelian.

12. Seals and Stamps—These are small devices with at least one side engraved (in intaglio and relief) with a design for stamping or sealing. Stamps and seals can be in the shape of squares, disks, cones, cylinders, or animals.

13. Rock Art—Rock art can be painted and/or incised drawings on natural rock surfaces. Common motifs include humans, animals, geometric, and/or floral elements.

1. Architectural Elements—These are baked clay (terracotta) elements used to decorate buildings. Examples include acroteria, antefixes, painted and relief plaques, revetments, carved and molded bricks, knobs, plain or glazed roof tiles, and glazed tile wall ornaments and panels.

2. Figurines—These include clay (terracotta) statues and statuettes in the shape of deities, humans, and animals ranging in height from approximately 5 cm to 20 cm (2 in to 8 in). Ceramic figurines may be undecorated or decorated with paint, appliques, or inscribed lines.

3. Vessels and Containers—Types, forms, and decoration vary among archaeological styles and over time. Shapes include jars, jugs, bowls, pitchers, plates, basins, cups, flasks, storage and shipping amphorae, cooking pots (such as Roman mortaria ), and large water jugs ( zirs ). Specific Punic, Phoenician, and Roman types include hydriae, oinochoi, kylikes, albastra, aryballoi, pyxides, unguentaria, kantharoi, kylixes, askoi, and lekythoi . Roman terra sigillata and other red gloss wares are common. Examples may be painted or unpainted, handmade or wheel-made, and may be decorated with burnishes, glazes, stamps, or carvings (such as incised sgraffitto ). Ceramic vessels can depict imagery of humans, deities, animals, floral decorations, or inscriptions in multiple languages.

4. Lamps—Lamps can be handmade or molded, glazed or unglazed, and appear in “saucer,” “slipper,” or other forms; they typically will have rounded bodies with a hole on the top and in the nozzle, handles or lugs, and may be decorated with motifs, such as beading, human faces, and rosettes or other floral elements. Inscriptions may also be found on the body. Later period examples such as glazed mosque lamps may have straight or round, bulbous bodies with a flared top and several branches.

5. Objects of Daily Use—These include game pieces carved from ceramic sherds, loom weights, toys, guttus, incense burners, tobacco pipes, andirons, and ceramic sherds painted with text in Latin or Greek, called ostraka .

1. Statuary—These are large- and small-scale, including deities, human, and animal figures in bronze, iron, silver, or gold. Common types are large-scale, free-standing statuary ranging in height from approximately 1 m to 2.5 m (approximately 3 ft to 8 ft) and life-size busts (head and shoulders of an individual).

2. Reliefs—These include plaques, appliques, steles, and masks, often in bronze. Reliefs may include inscriptions in various languages.

3. Inscribed or Decorated Sheet Metal—These are engraved inscriptions and thin metal sheets with engraved or impressed designs often used as attachments to furniture or figures. They are primarily made of copper alloy, bronze, or lead.

4. Vessels and Containers—Forms include bowls, cups, plates, jars, jugs, strainers, cauldrons, and boxes, as well as vessels in the shape of an animal or part of an animal. This category also includes scroll and manuscript containers, reliquaries, and incense burners. These vessels and containers are made of bronze, silver, or gold, and may portray deities, humans, or animals, as well as floral motifs in relief. They may include an inscription.

5. Jewelry—Jewelry includes necklaces, chokers, pectorals, finger rings, beads, pendants, bells, belts, buckles, earrings, diadems, straight pins and fibulae, bracelets, anklets, girdles, wreaths and crowns, cosmetic accessories and tools, metal strigils (scrapers), crosses, and lamp holders. Jewelry may be made of iron, bronze, silver, or gold. Metal can be inlaid with items, such as colored stones and glass.

6. Seals and Sealings—Seals are small devices with at least one side engraved with a design for stamping or sealing. Types include finger rings, amulets, and seals with a shank. Seals can be made of lead, tin, copper, bronze, silver, and/or gold. Sealings are lead strips, stamped in Arabic, that are used for closing bags of coins.

7. Tools—Types include hooks, weights, axes, scrapers, hammerheads, trowels, locks, keys, nails, hinges, tweezers, ingots, mirrors, thimbles, and fibulae (for pinning clothing); tools may be made of copper, bronze, or iron.

8. Weapons and Armor—This includes body armor, such as helmets, cuirasses, bracers, shin guards, and shields, and horse armor, often decorated with elaborate designs that are engraved, embossed, or perforated. This also includes both launching weapons ( e.g., spears, javelins, arrowheads) and hand-to-hand combat weapons ( e.g., swords, daggers, etc.) in copper, bronze, and iron.

9. Lamps—Lamps can be open saucer-type or closed, rounded bodies with a hole on the top and in the nozzle, handles, or lugs. They can include decorative designs, such as beading, human faces, animals or animal parts, and rosettes or other floral elements. This category includes handheld lamps, candelabras, braziers, sconces, chandeliers, and lamp stands.

10. Coins—This category includes coins of Numidian, Carthaginian (sometimes called Punic), Roman provincial, Vandal, Byzantine, Islamic, Norman, and Ottoman types that circulated primarily in Tunisia, ranging in date from the fifth century B.C. to A.D. 1750. Numidian, Roman provincial, and Vandal coins were made primarily in bronze, though some Numidian and Vandal types occur also in silver. Carthaginian types occur in electrum, a natural pale yellow alloy of gold and silver. Local Byzantine and later coin types were made in copper, bronze, silver, and gold. Coins may be square or round, have writing, and show imagery of animals, buildings, symbols, or royal figures.

1. Small Statuary and Figurines—These include representations of deities, humans, or animals in bone or ivory. These range from approximately 10 cm to 1 m (4 in to 40 in).

2. Reliefs, Plaques, Steles, and Inlays—These are carved and sculpted and may have figurative, floral, and/or geometric motifs. Examples may also have inscriptions in various languages.

3. Jewelry—Types include amulets, pendants, combs, pins, spoons, bracelets, buckles, beads, and pectorals. Jewelry can be made of bone, ivory, and spondylus shell.

4. Seals and Stamps—These are small devices with at least one side engraved with a design for stamping or sealing. Seals and stamps can be in the shape of squares, disks, cones, cylinders, or animals.

5. Vessels and Luxury Objects—Ivory, bone, and shell were used either alone or as inlays in luxury objects, including furniture, chests and boxes, writing and painting equipment, musical instruments, games, cosmetic containers, and combs. Examples can include decorated vessels made of ostrich eggshell.

6. Tools—Tools include bone points and awls, burnishers, needles, spatulae, and fish hooks.

7. Manuscripts—Manuscripts can be written or painted on paper or specially prepared animal skins ( e.g., cattle, sheep, goat, camel skins) known as parchment. They may be single leaves, bound as a book or codex, or rolled into a scroll.

8. Human Remains—This includes skeletal remains from the human body, preserved in burials or other contexts.

1. Architectural Elements—These include glass inlay and tesserae pieces from floor and wall mosaics, mirrors, and windowpanes.

2. Vessels and Containers—These can take various shapes, such as jars, bottles, bowls, beakers, goblets, candle holders, perfume jars ( unguentaria ), urns, chalices, and flasks. Vessels and containers may have cut, incised, raised, enameled, molded, or painted decoration. Examples may be engraved and/or light blue, blue-green, green, or colorless, while those from later periods may include animal, floral, and/or geometric motifs.

3. Jewelry—Jewelry includes bracelets and rings (often twisted with colored glass); pendants; and beads in various shapes ( e.g., circular, globular), some with relief decoration, including multi-colored “eye” beads.

4. Lamps—Lamps may have a straight or round, bulbous body. Some examples are in the form of a goblet with a flared top and engraved or molded decorations, while others are in a conical shape with blobbed decoration that were inset into metal candelabra. Lamps may have a single or several branches.

1. Wall Painting—Wall painting can include figurative ( i.e., deities, humans, animals), floral, and/or geometric motifs, as well as funerary scenes. These are painted on stone, mud plaster, and lime plaster (wet— buon fresco —and dry— secco fresco ), sometimes to imitate marble.

2. Stucco—Stucco is a fine plaster used for coating wall surfaces, or molding and carving into architectural decorations, such as reliefs, plaques, steles, and inlays.

1. Textiles—These include linen, hemp, and silk cloth used for burial wrapping, shrouds, garments, banners, and sails. These also include linen and wool used for garments and hangings.

2. Basketry—Plant fibers were used to make baskets and containers in a variety of shapes and sizes, as well as sandals and mats.

3. Rope—Rope and string were used for a great variety of purposes, including binding, lifting water for irrigation, fishing nets, measuring, lamp wicks, and stringing beads for jewelry and garments.

Includes tablets with painted text, generally in Latin but also in Greek. Examples were made from cedar, pine, and other softwoods.

Ethnological material includes architectural elements, manuscripts, and ceremonial, ritual, and funerary objects of the Islamic culture from the Ottoman and early Husseinite periods, ranging in date from approximately A.D. 1574 to 1881. This would exclude Jewish ceremonial or ritual objects.

1. Architectural Elements—This category includes doors, door frames, window fittings, columns, capitals, plinths, bases, lintels, jambs, roofs, archways, friezes, pilasters, engaged columns, altars, prayer niches ( mihrabs ), screens, fountains, inlays, and blocks from walls, floors, and ceilings of buildings. Architectural elements may be plain, molded, or carved and are often decorated with motifs and inscriptions. Marble, limestone, and sandstone are most commonly used.

2. Architectural and Non-Architectural Relief Sculpture—This category includes slabs, plaques, steles, capitals, and plinths carved with religious, figural, floral, or geometric motifs or inscriptions in Arabic for ceremonial, ritual, and funerary use. Examples occur primarily in marble, limestone, and sandstone.

3. Memorial Stones and Tombstones—This category includes tombstones, grave markers, and cenotaphs. Examples occur primarily in marble and are engraved with Arabic script.

4. Vessels and Containers—This category includes ceremonial, ritual, and funerary stone lamps and containers.

1. Architectural Elements—This category includes doors, door fixtures, such as knockers, bolts, and hinges, chandeliers, screens, taps, spigots, fountains, and sheets. Copper, brass, lead, and alloys are most commonly used.

2. Architectural and Non-Architectural Relief Sculpture—This category includes appliques, plaques, and steles, primarily made of bronze and brass, for ceremonial, ritual, and funerary use. Examples often include religious, figural, floral, or geometric motifs. They may also have inscriptions in Arabic.

3. Lamps—This category includes handheld lamps, candelabras, braziers, sconces, chandeliers, and lamp stands for ceremonial, ritual, and funerary use.

4. Vessels and Containers—This category includes containers used for religious services, such as Koran ( Qur'an ) cases, amulet boxes, and incense burners. Brass, copper, silver, and gold are most commonly used. Containers may be plain, engraved, hammered, or otherwise decorated.

5. Musical Instruments—This category includes instruments used in Islamic/Sufi religious ceremonies or rituals, such as cymbals and trumpets.

1. Architectural Elements—This category includes carved and molded brick, and engraved and/or painted and glazed tile wall ornaments and panels, sometimes with Arabic script.

2. Lamps—This category includes glazed mosque lamps that may have straight or round, bulbous bodies with a flared top and several branches.

1. Architectural Elements—This category includes doors, door frames and fixtures, windows, window frames, panels, beams, balconies, stages, screens, prayer niches ( mihrabs ), minbars, and ceilings. Examples may be decorated with religious, geometric, or floral motifs or inscriptions, and may be either carved or painted.

2. Architectural and Non-Architectural Relief Sculpture—This category includes panels, roofs, beams, balconies, stages, panels, ceilings, and doors for ceremonial, ritual, and funerary use. Examples are carved, inlaid, or painted with decorations of religious, floral, or geometric motifs, or Arabic inscriptions.

3. Furniture—This category includes furniture, such as minbars, professorial chairs, divans, stools, and tables from Islamic ceremonial, ritual, or funerary contexts. Examples can be carved, inlaid, or painted and are made from various types of wood.

4. Vessels and Containers—This category includes containers used for religious purposes such as Koran ( Qur'an ) cases. Examples may be carved, inlaid, or painted with decorations in religious, floral, or geometric motifs, or Arabic script.

5. Writing Implements—This category includes printing blocks, writing tablets, and Islamic study tablets inscribed in Arabic and used for teaching the Koran ( Qur'an ).

6. Musical Instruments—This category includes instruments used in Islamic/Sufi religious ceremonies or rituals, such as frame drums ( banadir ).

7. Beads—This category includes Islamic prayer beads ( mas'baha ). Examples may be plain or decorated with carved designs.

1. Architectural Elements—This category includes inlays for architectural elements.

2. Ceremonial Paraphernalia—This category includes boxes, reliquaries (and their contents), plaques, pendants, candelabra, and stamp and seal rings.

1. Architectural Elements—This category includes window panes, mosaic elements, inlays, and stained glass.

2. Vessels and Containers—This category includes glass and enamel mosque lamps and vessels used for Islamic religious services.

3. Beads—This category includes Islamic prayer beads ( mas'baha ) in glass or semi-precious stones.

1. Books and Manuscripts—Manuscripts can be written or painted on paper or specially prepared animal skins ( e.g., cattle, sheep, goat, camel skins) known as parchment. They occur as single leaves, bound with leather or wood as a book or codex, or rolled into a scroll. Types include the Koran ( Qur'an ) and other Islamic books and manuscripts, often written in black or brown ink, and sometimes embellished with painted colorful floral or geometric motifs.

2. Vessels and Containers—This category includes containers used for Islamic religious services, such as leather Koran ( Qur'an ) cases or pouches.

3. Musical Instruments—This category includes instruments used in Islamic/Sufi religious ceremonies or rituals, such as leather drums ( banadir ).

This category includes hangings, shrine covers, and prayer rugs used in Islamic/Sufi religious ceremonies or rituals. Examples can be made from linen, silk, and/or wool.

This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866 and, by extension, Executive Order 13563.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary for this rule, CBP is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule.

This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1) pertaining to the Secretary of the Treasury's authority (or that of the Secretary's delegate) to approve regulations related to customs revenue functions.

Troy A. Miller, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to the Director (or Acting Director, if applicable) of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division for CBP, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below:

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the Secretary authority to reserve not more than one-half of one percent of the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide TA activities, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA. The maximum amount the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside for any fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review the data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information determined necessary for implementation of section 616 and 642 of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements, which include the data collection and reporting requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, gives the Secretary authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA to “administer and carry out other services and activities to improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use under parts B and C of the IDEA.” Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, Div. D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).

Assistance Listing Number: 84.373Z.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 1442; Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, Div. D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.

We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP) for this program in the Federal Register on February 22, 2024 (89 FR 13294). That document contained background information and our reasons for proposing the priority and requirements.

There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final priority and requirements (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document. The most significant change, as discussed below, is the elimination of the requirement for an electronic open-source tool to assist States in linking and integrating their Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data with other data/data systems associated with other Federal programs that support infants, toddlers, and young children and their families. 1 We are also adding expected outcome (i) for the Center.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, eight parties submitted comments addressing the proposed priority and requirements. We received one additional comment unrelated to the priority.

Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priority and requirements.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority and requirements since publication of the NPP follows. We received comments on a number of specific topics, including the topics for TA. Each topic is addressed below.

Comments: All commenters specifically expressed support for the proposed Center, as it would improve State capacity for IDEA early childhood data collection, analysis, and reporting.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with the commenters that the Center funded under this program will provide necessary and valuable TA to States to improve the capacity of States to meet their IDEA early childhood data collection, analysis, and reporting requirements.

Changes: None.

Comment: The majority of commenters focused their comments on the Department's directed question regarding the phased-in funding strategy, which entails smaller initial awards followed by larger ones in subsequent years. Many expressed reservations about this approach, particularly in light of the expanded scope and obligations introduced by Proposed Priority 2: Technical Assistance To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Child Find Data For Infants and Toddlers. They highlighted concerns about the added requirement to create an open-source electronic tool aimed at assisting States in integrating their Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data with other Federal program data systems supporting infants, toddlers, and young children and their families. The commenters also noted that the strategy would restrict the Center's ability to offer comprehensive support to States. One commenter suggested postponing intensive TA on data utilization for Child Find processes until full funding could be secured, emphasizing the need for additional financial resources to develop the open-source electronic tool.

Discussion: The Department agrees with the feedback provided by commenters regarding the necessity to align the scope and requirements of these priorities with the available funding for this project. We recognize the ongoing needs of States concerning the collection, reporting, analysis, and use of IDEA Part C and Part B preschool special education data. Consequently, any expansion of the scope and requirements for these priorities should align to the most pressing needs identified by States. To address the concerns raised by commenters, the Department is refining the scope and requirements of these priorities accordingly. Furthermore, we expect applicants to propose suitable timelines for implementing general, targeted, and intensive TA, taking into account the annual funding levels provided for this project.

Changes: The Department is adjusting the scope of these priorities and requirements to align with the funding available for this Center by eliminating the requirement for an open-source tool and narrowing the scope of TA associated with data integration to primarily focus on the sharing, linking, or integrating of IDEA Part C early intervention and IDEA Part B preschool special education data.

Comments: Two commenters expressed approval for incorporating an open-source electronic tool to aid States in linking and integrating their Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data with other data/data systems associated with other Federal programs that support infants, toddlers, and young children and their families. However, several commenters voiced concerns regarding the inclusion of this requirement in Priority 1. They pointed out that creating such a tool would demand significant project resources and a substantial commitment of State staff, which may currently be unfeasible. Moreover, one commenter provided evidence suggesting that this tool is not a top priority for State staff compared to other aspects of these priorities.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the feedback provided on the open-source electronic tool to assist States in linking and integrating their Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data with other data/data systems associated with other Federal programs that support infants, toddlers, and young children and their families. We agree with the commenters that the development of the open-source electronic tool should be omitted from the requirements of these priorities to align the scope of this center with the most pressing needs identified by States.

Changes: We removed the requirement for an open-source electronic tool from Priority 1.

Comments: Several commenters suggested modifications to the scope and expected outcomes of the TA concerning the enhancement, streamlining, and integration of statewide, child-level early childhood data systems. One commenter stated that many States have a considerable amount of work to do before they are able to integrate and/or link data outside of the IDEA Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education programs. Another commenter noted that, while TA is an important component to the data integration work, States must also have State leadership support, support of other programs and agencies, as well as necessary staff, financial resources, and data capacity to plan for and accomplish the complexities involved in this type of data integration. This commenter noted that States expressed that the expected outcome related to data system integration was of lower priority to Part C early intervention programs. They noted that given the current challenges and priorities of Part C lead agencies, data integration for many States remains aspirational at this point. For these reasons, commenters suggested to focus this TA on—(1) data sharing and linking between the IDEA Part C early intervention program and IDEA Part B preschool special education programs; and (2) States' readiness to engage in TA related to linking or integrating Part C and Part B preschool special education data with other statewide, child-level early learning data systems ( e.g., early childhood integrated data systems (ECIDS)).

Discussion: The Department acknowledges that States vary in their levels of interest, capability, and commitment to share, link, or integrate their Part C and Part B preschool special education data with data from other early learning data systems. Additionally, we recognize that engaging in TA regarding data sharing, linking, and integrating requires a significant commitment of State staff and resources. Moreover, we appreciate the feedback indicating that data sharing, linking, and integrating with other early learning data systems is a lower priority for Part C and Part B preschool special education programs at this time. We also appreciate the recommendation to assess the readiness of States to engage in TA on this topic. Consequently, we are refining the scope of Priority 1 in light of these considerations.

Changes: The Department has removed expected outcome (e) concerning State capacity to utilize available integrated or linked Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data and/or early childhood integrated data systems to analyze high-quality data on the participation and outcomes of infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities served under IDEA who may also participate in other programs.

Additionally, we have made the following revisions:

• Expected outcome (c) in Priority 1 now emphasizes increasing the number of States with plans to share, link, or integrate data, specifically considering the linking of Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data.

• Expected outcome (e) in Priority 1 now concentrates on enhancing States' readiness to engage in data sharing, linking, or integration activities among Part C and Part B preschool special education data/systems and other statewide longitudinal and early learning data/systems. This includes data/systems associated with child care, Early Head Start, Head Start, publicly funded preschool, and home visiting programs.

• Expected outcome (f) in Priority 1 now centers on data management policies and procedures, encompassing data sharing, linking, and integration, as well as data system integration activities. These policies and procedures aim to facilitate the collection, reporting, analysis, and use of high-quality IDEA Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data.

Comments: Several commenters recommended the inclusion of additional areas of State need associated with the IDEA section 616 data (as modified by IDEA section 642), including early childhood and family outcomes data, data to be reported on the new general supervision indicator, and data for the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). Additionally, commenters provided support for providing TA around Part C child find data and analyses, including defining, collecting, and using data to improve the processes for identifying young children eligible for IDEA services and to monitor equitable access to early intervention services.

Discussion: The Department agrees with the need for this Center to increase State capacity to collect, report, analyze and use Part C child find data, early childhood and family outcomes data, general supervision data, and program improvement data. These areas align with the following indicators that State Part C Programs report under the IDEA section 616 data: Indicator 3 (Early Childhood Outcomes), Indicator 4 (Family Outcomes), Indicators 5 and 6 (Child Find), Indicator 11 (SSIP), and Indicator 12 (General Supervision). This Center will provide TA in these areas as they relate to the collection, reporting, analysis, and use of the IDEA section 616 data under expected outcome (a) of Priority 1.

Changes: The Department inserted a footnote to clarify the data reported under IDEA section 616 in expected outcome (a) of Priority 1.

Comments: Two commenters expressed the need for this Center to provide TA to support State capacity to participate in the Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) process.

Discussion: The Department acknowledges the necessity of enhancing State capacity to collect, report, analyze and use data for evidence-based monitoring protocols within the DMS process. DMS is a cyclical monitoring process that focuses on States' general supervision systems. General supervision encompasses each State's responsibility to ensure that the State and its subgrantees and contractors meet the requirements of IDEA. These requirements include improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities, and early intervention results and functional outcomes for all infants and toddlers with disabilities. Additionally, public agencies must meet the program requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving early intervention results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and educational results for children with disabilities. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) identifies data, including the State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR), as one of the four components of general supervision that is examined in the DMS process. Consequently, we have incorporated an expected outcome related to strengthening State capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use data, demonstrating State-level implementation of IDEA policies and procedures.

Changes: The Department inserted expected outcome (i) in Priority 1 to build State capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data to improve State IDEA data analyses regarding results and functional outcomes for all infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities to demonstrate and improve how public agencies meet the program requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving early intervention results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and educational results for children with disabilities as monitored by the Department via its DMS process.

Comments: Two commenters suggested a specific focus on building State capacity in the area of data leadership.

Discussion: The Department agrees that there is a need to build State capacity in data leadership. Data leaders are expected to create a culture of data use in their programs, facilitate and promote building the capacity of staff and stakeholders to use data, and enhance the data infrastructure needed to improve the management of Part C and Part B preschool special education data through the entire life cycle.

Changes: The Department revised expected outcome (g) in Priority 1 to include building State capacity to address data leadership training needs.

Comments: One commenter suggested a need for the Center to offer cross-State connections and learning opportunities and another commenter suggested adding a requirement for the Center to host a data conference.

Discussion: The Department agrees there is a need for the Center to offer cross-State training opportunities. We think that expected outcome (g) in Priority 1, which requires the Center to facilitate both in-person and virtual cross-State training for data leaders and personnel in State and local programs and agencies, effectively addresses this need. Applicants should propose the type(s) of cross-State training opportunities they believe are most effective and efficient to build State capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use the Part C and Part B preschool special education data.

Changes: None.

Comments: One commenter suggested that there should be an intentional focus on equitable data collection, analysis, and use within these priorities.

Discussion: The Department agrees that there is a need to build State capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use Part C and Part B preschool special education data to support equitable identification, access, services, outcomes, and impact of early intervention and preschool special education and related services on infants, toddlers, and young children receiving services under IDEA. Additionally, we think the expected outcome (h) in Priority 1 and the expected outcomes (b), (c), and (d) in Priority 2 address this need.

Changes: None.

This document contains two final priorities.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early Childhood IDEA Data (Center).

The Center will provide TA to (1) improve State capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part C early intervention data (including IDEA section 618 Part C data and IDEA section 616 Part C data) and IDEA Part B preschool special education data on children with disabilities; and (2) enhance and streamline Part C and Part B preschool special education data systems by sharing, linking, and integrating statewide, child-level early childhood data (including Part C and Part B preschool special education data) to improve the analyses of IDEA data to address critical policy questions that will facilitate program improvement, improve compliance accountability, and improve outcomes or results for children served under Part C and Part B preschool special education programs. These Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data systems must allow the States to (1) effectively and efficiently respond to all IDEA-related data submission requirements ( e.g., Part C section 616 and 618 data and Part B preschool special education data); (2) improve the analyses of IDEA data to respond to critical policy questions that will facilitate program improvement and compliance accountability; and (3) comply with applicable privacy requirements, including the privacy and confidentiality requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA and applicable provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and its regulations at 34 CFR part 99. 2 The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part C early intervention data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data  3 and section 618 Part C data  4 );

(b) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part B preschool special education data;

(c) Increased number of States with plans to share, link, or integrate Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data (that comply with all applicable privacy laws) and use such shared, linked, or integrated Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data to improve program compliance and accountability;

(d) Increased number of States that use their Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data system to identify and answer critical State-determined policy questions to drive program improvement, improve results for children with disabilities, and improve compliance accountability;

(e) Increased number of States who consider engaging in data sharing, linking, or integration activities related to Part C and Part B preschool special education data/data systems to other statewide longitudinal and early learning data/data systems ( e.g., Early Head Start, Head Start, child care, publicly funded preschool, and home visiting programs) and identify how to enable such sharing, linkages, or integration so that it would comply with all applicable privacy laws;

(f) Increased capacity of States to implement and document Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data management policies and procedures, including data sharing, linking, and integration activities, used to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data;

(g) Increased capacity of States to address data leadership and personnel training needs to collect, report, analyze, and use the Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data collection through development of effective tools and resources, as well as providing opportunities for in-person and virtual cross-State training for data leaders and personnel in State and local programs and agencies to collect, report, analyze, and use Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education;

(h) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use Part C and Part B preschool special education data to support equitable identification, access, services, outcomes, and impact of early intervention and preschool special education and related services on infants, toddlers, and young children receiving services under IDEA; and

(i) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data to improve State IDEA data analyses regarding results and functional outcomes for all infants, toddlers, and young children with disabilities to demonstrate and improve how public agencies meet the program requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving early intervention results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and educational results for children with disabilities as monitored by OSEP via its Differentiated Monitoring and Support process.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund TA to increase the capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use available data to improve the Part C child find data they report through their Part C SPP/APR.

The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use available data to improve the root cause analysis of their Part C child find data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data for indicators C5 and C6 and section 618 Part C data);

(b) Increased number of States that have the capacity to identify, for children served under IDEA Part C, other data they may collect (such as number of infants and toddlers referred, screened, evaluated, eligible, and enrolled in early intervention services under Part C) by various characteristics of the child, including race, ethnicity, home language, gender, socio-economic status, and geographic location;

(c) Increased number of States that have the capacity to conduct a root cause analysis of available child find data to better identify disparities among demographic groups and potential barriers to enrollment in early intervention services under Part C of IDEA; and

(d) Increased number of States that have the capacity to use their IDEA and non-IDEA Part C child find data to improve their IDEA child find processes at the State and local program levels.

Types of Priorities:

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

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

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

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

This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities or requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use this priority and these requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register .

The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for this program. In addition to the program requirements contained in both priorities, to be considered for funding applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements. We may apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

Requirements:

Applicants must—

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

(1) Address State challenges associated with early childhood data management and data sharing, linking, and integration, including implementing early childhood data system integration and improvements; enhancing and streamlining Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data systems to respond to critical policy questions; using ECIDS for program improvement and compliance accountability for Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education programs; reporting high-quality IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data and section 618 Part C data) and IDEA Part B preschool special education data to the Department and the public; and analyzing Part C child find data to improve equitable access to Part C early intervention services. To meet this requirement the applicant must—

(i) Present applicable national, State, or local data demonstrating the challenges of States to implement effective early childhood data management policies and procedures and data sharing, linking, and integration activities, including integrating early childhood data systems across IDEA programs, other early learning programs, and other educational programs for school-aged students; link Part C and Part B preschool special education program data; use their Part C and Part B preschool special education data systems to respond to critical State-determined policy questions for program improvement and compliance accountability; and collect, report, analyze, and use Part C child find data to improve equitable access to Part C early intervention services;

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational and technical issues and policy initiatives relating to early childhood data management and data sharing, linking, and integration; data use; data privacy; Part C IDEA sections 616 and 618 data; Part C child find data; Part B preschool special education data; and Part C and Part B preschool special education data systems; and

(iii) Present information about the current level of implementation of sharing, linking, and integrating Part C and Part B preschool special education data; sharing, linking, or integrating Part C and/or Part B preschool special education data systems with other early learning data systems; using Part C and Part B preschool special education data systems to respond to critical State-determined policy questions; and collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using high-quality IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data and section 618 Part C data) and IDEA Part B preschool special education data; and

(2) Improve early childhood data management policies and procedures and data sharing, linking, and integration practices to: collect, report, and analyze high-quality Part C and Part B preschool special education data (including Part C child find data); share, link, or integrate Part C and Part B preschool special education data; share, link, or integrate these data with data on children participating in other early learning programs and data on school-aged children; and use robust early childhood data systems to improve the analyses of IDEA data to the extent these analyses answer critical State-determined policy questions. Include the likely magnitude or importance of the improvements.

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

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

(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and information; and

(ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the intended recipients of the grant;

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

(ii) In appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in appendix A) to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

Note: The following websites provide more information on logic models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework .

(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based  5 practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) The current research on early childhood data management and data sharing, linking, and integration, and related EBPs; and

(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;

(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How it proposes to identify and develop the knowledge base on early childhood data management and data system integration;

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA, 6 which must identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach;

(iii) The proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, 7 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services;

(B) The proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the State and local level; and

(C) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with OSEP-funded centers and other federally funded TA centers to develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when the work of the center or centers overlaps with the proposed project; and

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, 8 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to addressing States' challenges associated with limited resources to engage in early childhood data sharing, linking, and integration and enhancement activities that streamline the established Part C and Part B preschool special education data systems to respond to critical policy questions and to report high-quality IDEA data to the Department and the public, which must, at a minimum, include providing on-site consultants to the State lead agency (LA) or State educational agency (SEA) to—

(1) Model and document data management and data sharing, linking, and integration policies, procedures, processes, and activities within the State;

(2) Develop and adapt tools and provide technical solutions to meet State-specific data needs; and

(3) Develop a sustainability plan for the State to continue the data management and data sharing, linking, and integration work in the future;

(C) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of State LA and SEA personnel to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the State and local levels;

(D) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a primary focus on meeting the needs of States with known ongoing data quality issues, as measured by OSEP's review of the quality of the IDEA sections 616 and 618 data;

(E) Its proposed plan for assisting State LAs and SEAs to build or enhance training systems that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching;

(F) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the education system ( e.g., State LAs, SEAs, regional TA providers, districts, local programs, families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there are systems in place to support the collection, reporting, analysis, and use of high-quality IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data, section 618 Part C data, and Part C child find data) and IDEA Part B preschool special education data as well as early childhood data management and data system integration; and

(G) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data, the Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, other Department-funded TA investments, other federally funded TA investments, and Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics research and development investments, where appropriate, in order to align complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and services to meet the purposes of this priority and to develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a State; and

(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes;

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation,” include an evaluation plan for the project developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party evaluator. 9 The evaluation plan must—

(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these application and administrative requirements;

(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as well as project outcomes will be measured to answer the evaluation questions.

Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;

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

(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and include staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate that the data will be available annually for the annual performance report (APR) and at the end of Year 2; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the management plan,” how—

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

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

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

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

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and

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

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

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

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

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

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

(iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP;

(3) Provide an assurance that the project will—

(i) Reallocate unused travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter if the kick-off or planning meetings are conducted virtually; and

(ii) Within 30 days of receipt of the award, participate in a post-award teleconference between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's project director or other authorized representative;

(4) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;

(5) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing targeted and intensive TA to States;

(6) Provide an assurance that it will maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and

(7) Include, in appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to States during the transition to these new award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Department believes that this regulatory action does not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in this program is voluntary. While this action does impose some requirements on participating grantees that are cost-bearing, the Department expects that applicants for this program will include in their proposed budgets a request for funds to support compliance with such cost-bearing requirements. Therefore, costs associated with meeting these requirements are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.

The Department believes that these benefits to the Federal Government outweigh the costs associated with this action.

The final priorities, including requirements, contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028; the final priorities, including requirements, do not affect the currently approved data collection.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect are LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under State law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by these final priorities and requirements will be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits will outweigh any costs incurred by applicants.

Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priorities and requirements impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to apply for Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program funds, an eligible entity will evaluate the requirements of preparing an application and any associated costs and weigh them against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity will apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application.

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

This final regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it will be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under this program.

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

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

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

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

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

The Copyright Act authorizes the Register of Copyrights to specify by regulation the administrative classes of works for the purpose of registration and the deposit required for each class. 1 In addition, Congress gave the Register the discretion to allow registration of groups of related works with one application and one filing fee. 2 This procedure is known as “group registration.”  3 Pursuant to this authority, the Register has issued several regulations permitting group registrations for certain types of works, including newspapers, newsletters and serials, unpublished works, unpublished and published photographs, contributions to periodicals, secure test items, works on an album of music, short online literary works, and database updates. 4

This rulemaking expands the available group registration options because of several factors specifically impacting news websites. Along with receiving requests from online publishers, the Office observed the increase in news content offered online and the dynamic nature of such material. 5 It also reviewed stakeholder comments in prior proceedings that discussed the challenges associated with registering online news content, including those submitted in response to its 2022 Copyright Protections for Press Publishers report. 6 Finally, the Office acknowledged the deposit challenges associated with websites, particularly news websites, in its 2011 publication titled Priorities and Special Projects of the United States Copyright Office (October 2011-October 2013) . 7

On January 3, 2024, the Office published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to establish a new group registration option for frequently updated news websites. 8 The proposed rule would allow an applicant to register a news website as a collective work (including any individual component works it fully owns, such as literary works, photographs, and/or graphics)  9 with a deposit composed of identifying material, rather than the complete contents of the website. The proposed rule would also allow registration of the news website and any updates published within one calendar month, if the deposit evidences a sufficiently creative selection, coordination, or arrangement within each collective work to constitute a copyrightable compilation. 10 Each collective work must have been created as a work made for hire, with the same person or entity named as both the author and copyright claimant. The proposed rule stated that applicants would be required to submit their claims through the online copyright registration system, using the application currently in use for a group of newspaper issues. 11

The Office received twenty comments in response to the NPRM. 12 All but one  13 supported the Office's proposal to create the new group registration option, though the majority requested various modifications. Two commenters, however, expressly conditioned their support on substantive changes to the rule, which would substantially change its scope. 14 In general, commenters were interested in expanding eligibility for this option to a greater number of works and changing the deposit requirement. Proposals included revising the definition of “news website,” removing the work made for hire and author/claimant requirements, increasing the time limitation for updates to the news website, clarifying the “home page” deposit requirement, and asking the Office to confirm the scope of remedies for copyright infringement of a collective work. 15 Finally, one commenter encouraged the Office to “identify opportunities for improvement” and to remain “adaptive to technological changes.”  16

Having reviewed and carefully considered each of the comments, the Office now issues a final rule that is nearly identical to the proposed rule, with one modification reflecting concerns raised by some commenters regarding the “home page” deposit requirement and one modification concerning the application form for this option. These modifications are discussed in more detail below. With respect to requests that we received to expand the scope of the rule, the Office will closely monitor how the new group option performs, including the number and complexity of the claims submitted, the amount of time needed to examine these claims, and the modest filing fee for this option. The Office remains open to revisiting these issues in the future based on this rule's performance.

In the NPRM, the Office proposed to limit this group registration option to updates to a “news website,” defined as “a website that is designed to be a primary source of written information on current events, either local, national, or international in scope, that contains a broad range of news on all subjects and activities and is not limited to any specific subject matter.” As described in the NPRM, the proposed rule stems from the rapid development and predominance of news websites over print newspapers, 17 and requests from news publishers for a feasible way to register “newspaper websites” that are “updated frequently.”  18 Thus, the proposed rule is an extension of the existing group newspaper option that has been available for decades. 19 Consistent with the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, the proposed rule defines a “website” as “a web page or set of interconnected web pages that are accessed using a uniform resource locator (“URL”) organized under a particular domain name.” A number of commenters encouraged the Office to expand the type of works eligible under the rule and recommended revisions to both definitions.

Before turning to the requests to expand the rule, the Office addresses the argument made by a small number of commenters that the proposed group registration option would violate the First Amendment by limiting the option to a particular type of work. In a joint comment, NWU, NPPA, and NASW stated that restricting the option to “news” websites constitutes “[c]ontent-based discrimination,” which they considered “[c]onstitutionally suspect and subject to strict scrutiny” that the rule “cannot meet.”  20 In support of this argument, they cited Arkansas Writers Project v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221 (1987), which reviewed a state sales tax scheme that taxed general interest magazines, but exempted newspapers and religious, professional trade, and sports journals. Because Arkansas “advanced no compelling justification for selective, content-based taxation of certain magazines,” the Supreme Court held the tax scheme invalid under the First Amendment. 21 Analogizing the tax scheme in Arkansas Writers Project to the proposed registration option, NWU, NPPA, and NASW argued that the exclusion of any web content that does not meet the “news website” definition is unconstitutional. 22

Aligned with NWU, NPPA, and NASW, another commenter, Gordon Firemark, contended that, by limiting the group option to updates to news websites, the proposed rule “excludes other types of content from [its] benefits” and denies content creators “relief from the burdens of the current system.”  23 He argued that recent Supreme Court precedent concerning trademark registration requires a content-neutral approach. 24

The Office disagrees with these arguments. It is correct that the Supreme Court has held that content-based laws—laws restricting or compelling speech based on its communicative content—are presumptively unconstitutional, 25 and subject to strict scrutiny, under which the government must show that the law is the “least restrictive means” of advancing a “compelling” governmental interest. 26 A regulation can be content-based “on its face,” if its text applies to speech based on the subject matter, topic, or viewpoint of that speech. It can also be content-based if it has a discriminatory purpose that “cannot be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech” or was “adopted by the government because of disagreement with the message” conveyed. 27 However, a regulation that places “a differential burden on speakers is insufficient by itself to raise First Amendment concerns.”  28 The tax scheme in Arkansas Writers Project was found to violate these principles by being directed at particular subjects, thus targeting a small group within the press. 29 That is not the case here.

The Office's proposed group registration option is not analogous to the unconstitutional tax statute in Arkansas Writers Project for multiple reasons. First, the option does not restrict or compel speech based on its communicative content. Nor does it favor or disfavor particular topics or subjects, or exclude a small group of the press. 30 Instead the option is available for updates to news websites that contain a broad range of topics regardless of the content of the speech involved.

Second, the registration option is viewpoint neutral and operates not as a restriction on speech, but as a condition for qualifying for one of many options available to register copyrights, including online websites and other publications. The Standard Application is available to any type of author for any type of work within the statutory categories. 31 Group registration options are discretionary accommodations offered by the Office in a number of areas. Currently, the Office administers ten group options covering unpublished works, short online literary works, works on an album of music, serials, newspapers, newsletters, contributions to periodicals, published and unpublished photographs, automated databases, and secure test items. 32 For online publications, group serials and group newsletters are other registration options for publications that fall outside of the “newspaper” or “news website” definitions.

The Supreme Court's recent ruling in a case involving trademark regulations supports the Office's view. There the Court reviewed a rule of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) barring the registration of trademarks that use the names of particular living individuals without their written consent. 33 The Court held that this bar, though content-based, is viewpoint neutral and does not violate the First Amendment. 34 The Court noted that while its precedents “distinguish between content-based and content-neutral regulations of speech,”  35 they further distinguish “a particularly `egregious form of content discrimination'—viewpoint discrimination,” which targets not merely a subject matter, “but particular views taken by speakers on a subject.”  36 The Court identified “[s]everal features of trademark [law]” that “counsel against a per se rule of applying heightened scrutiny to viewpoint-neutral, but content-based trademark regulations.” Most notably, it found that “trademark rights have always coexisted with the First Amendment, despite the fact that trademark protection necessarily requires content-based distinctions.”  37 Accordingly, the Court held that USPTO's “content-based, but viewpoint-neutral, trademark restriction [ ] is compatible with the First Amendment.”  38

Similarly, copyright registration, and the broad administrative classification authority Congress granted to the Register, necessarily requires content-based distinctions. Indeed, since its passage in 1976, the Copyright Act has authorized the Register “to specify by regulation the administrative classes into which works are to be placed for purposes of deposit and registration” and to permit “ for particular classes, the deposit of identifying material instead of copies or phonorecords, the deposit of only one copy or phonorecord where two would normally be required, or a single registration for a group of related works.”  39 Like the USPTO's name bar, these administrative distinctions are not based on the particular views taken by authors and have always coexisted with the First Amendment. The addition of an administrative classification for this new group registration option, which adopts near-identical criteria for determining “news” content to that of the existing group option for newspapers, is “a matter of policy and discretion”  40 fully compatible with the First Amendment.

Further, unlike the viewpoint-based trademark provisions held unconstitutional for barring registration of scandalous or disparaging marks, 41 the Office's viewpoint-neutral administrative classification does not bar registration for non-news content or websites. Quite the opposite: to increase participation in the registration system, the Office has created several group options for the registration of works that are published online. 42 The Standard Application also remains available to any type of author for any type of work within the statutory categories. This rule does not prevent anyone's ability to register non-news works.

Multiple commenters urged the Office to expand the rule's definition of “news website” by removing the condition that the website must contain news on all subjects and activities. 43 In encouraging the Office “not to exclude . . . specialized websites,” the ABA-IPL noted that the “proposed rule may provide especially meaningful benefit to smaller news websites—including those that focus on certain `specific subject matter.' ”  44 HBP argued that “websites, like HBR.org, that focus on a particular area of news . . . still face the same registration problems afflicting all news websites.”  45 The Authors Guild also expressed concern that the rule would exclude more specialized news publications, such as those that focus on political news. It argued that “these publications clearly qualify as news websites under any ordinary understanding of that term.”  46 Relatedly, commenters claimed that content restrictions “put[ ] examiners in an untenable position of deciding what is or is not `news.' ”  47 Finally, four commenters asked the Office to abandon the “news website” definition and extend the group option “to any periodically-produced content distributed through the internet.”  48

After considering this request and in the interest of implementing this final rule as quickly as possible, the Office declines to revise the definition at this time. As an extension of the newspaper group option, the “news website” definition is modeled on the Office's longstanding regulation defining a “newspaper” as a publication that is “mainly designed to be a primary source of written information on current events, either local, national, or international in scope,” that “contains a broad range of news on all subjects and activities and is not limited to any specific subject matter.”  49 This definition is very broad and it is intended to “make any newspaper eligible for a group registration.”  50 It is also intended to distinguish a “newspaper” from a “newsletter,” which is defined elsewhere in the regulations as a publication that contains “news or information that is chiefly of interest to a special group, such as trade and professional associations, colleges, schools, or churches.”  51

Under this definition, newspapers are aimed at any member of the general public who may be interested in newsworthy information or events that are reported on a given day. 52 By applying a similar definition to websites, the final rule recognizes that “news websites” are also intended to have universal appeal.

This definition would encompass news websites that cover current events and provide information on diverse topics, including some political websites like those identified in the Authors Guild's comment. 53 Although these sites focus primarily on issues involving politics and events with political implications, they do not limit their coverage to a particular subject matter nor are they directed at narrow or discrete groups of readers. 54

The Office also disagrees with commenters that the “news website” eligibility requirement places a burden on examiners. Indeed, the definitions for “news website” and “newspaper” are similar, in part, to enable consistent application of both rules. Examiners are accustomed to assessing eligibility based on this definition.

However, if the definition proves too rigid or unworkable, the Office is willing to revisit this issue based on its experience in administering this rule. Importantly, however, this new group option is not intended to extend to the websites of all serials or newsletters, which in print or ePrint form have the benefit of separate group registration options. 55

The Office received requests to expand the rule beyond websites. Commenters recommended that the proposed rule be amended to include mobile applications (“apps”) in the definition of “website.”  56 They argued that “[m]any news publishers encourage users to access content on an app rather than a website.”  57

The Office declines to amend the definition. It considers an app to be “a computer program that is used directly or indirectly in a computer or handheld electronic device.”  58 The Office has a procedure for registering the underlying code that operates the app. 59 To the extent that news publishers seek to register the works published on the app, a registration for a newspaper or a news website would protect those works if they contain the same content.

AIPLA encouraged the Office to revise the definition of “website” to clarify that a website is not limited to content accessed using a single domain name. 60 It explained that “web pages are composed of various elements, like text, images, and videos” that “might be hosted on a different server than the one hosting the main web page for reasons such as efficiency, speed, and cost.”  61 The Office appreciates this distinction but declines to revise the definition. To qualify for this option, each collective work in the group must be published under one particular domain name. For registration purposes, the Office does not assess eligibility based on where component digital works may be stored. The Office believes the “particular web page” requirement is necessary to prevent applicants from using the option to register collective works published under different domain names on the same application, which would make it difficult to identify the website that is covered by the registration. Therefore, the final rule retains the definition proposed in the NPRM.

The proposed rule provides that claims registered under this option will be limited to the collective work authorship based on the selection, coordination, and/or arrangement of the individual component works, and that all parts of the collective work will constitute one work for purposes of 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(1). 62 Additionally, the Office made clear that the registration will also cover the individual contributions contained within the collective work if they are fully owned by the copyright claimant and were first published in that work.

NPR asked the Office to confirm that “the scope of the collective work will explicitly include all copyrightable contributions made by the claimant, not just textual works.”  63 As noted above, a “news website” is defined as “a website that is designed to be a primary source of written information.”  64 If the collective work contains individual contributions that are fully owned by the copyright claimant and were first published in the work, then the registration will cover those contributions, so long as they are copyrightable subject matter. However, a component work “that is perceptible to the user only by downloading or separately purchasing that particular work is not considered part of the website for registration purposes and must be registered separately.”  65 Additionally, any “externally linked content [ i.e., content residing on another website] is not considered part of the website's content for registration purposes.”  66

HBP recommended that the Office permit applicants to disclaim content that is licensed and not owned by the applicant. As with group newspapers, the Office does not see the need for a limitation of claim for news websites, because the proposed rule expressly states that “[e]ach update to the website must be [an original] collective work.” A registration issued by the Office pursuant to this rule will only cover the new contributions owned by the copyright claimant. Consistent with any collective work registration, any articles, photos, or other contributions included in the collective work that were previously published, previously registered, owned by another party, or in the public domain are automatically excluded from the claim. As a practical matter, therefore, a disclaimer to expressly exclude material in the application is unnecessary.

Port. Prerogative Club asked the Office to “[c]larify whether updates to numerical information, such as prices, volumes, retweets, or other metrics, qualify as registrable under the rule, and whether the Office has changed its policy on the registrability of short phrases and headlines.” The Office states that its longstanding regulation denying protection for words and short phrases has not changed. 67 Regarding “prices, volumes, retweets, or other metrics,” it is unclear whether the commenter is referring to individual works of authorship, or whether these items appear in a compilation. Individual numbers and short phrases are not copyrightable. However, a copyrightable compilation of these items may be registrable.

The proposed rule permits an applicant to include updates published on the same website within the same calendar month. Three commenters urged the Office to remove the limitation, arguing that it is too “onerous.”  68 NPR recommended that the Office allow for the option to cover “three months, or six months, or a calendar year” to “reduce registration costs.”  69 Noting that “attorneys' fees and statutory damages can be awarded as long as copyright is registered within three months of first publication,” NWU, NPPA, and NASW requested that the rule be amended to allow registration of updates published “during any specified three-month period.”  70

At this time, given administrative capabilities, the Office cannot expand the option to cover more than one month of updates. As the NPRM explained, to deliver the option promptly, and to minimize development time, the Office is adapting the existing group application for newspapers, which is used to register up to one month of newspaper issues and contains technical validations that prevent applicants from entering publication dates that are more than one month apart. Changing the limit would require additional modifications to the application and delay implementation of the final rule. Further, the Office seeks an appropriate balance between the interests of copyright owners and the administrative burden to the Office. Based on the modest fee set for this option, some limit on the number of works included in each claim is necessary. The Office will reassess whether the limit can be increased after it has gained sufficient experience administering the rule.

Under the proposed rule, to be eligible for the option, each collective work in the group must have been created as a work made for hire, with the same person or entity named as the author and copyright claimant. Multiple commenters questioned this requirement. 71 The Authors Guild argued that the work made for hire requirement “arbitrarily and unfairly confines the benefit of the rule to corporate entities even where other creators are producing substantially the same type of content.”  72 While they recognized that this requirement reflects practical and technical limitations, NMA and AIPLA noted that “there does not seem to be a fundamental reason for such a limitation in principle, and in many business cases, the work may be fully owned by the publisher, or obtained via assignment or operation of law.”  73

The Office acknowledges that the work made for hire requirement may not reflect every business case of ownership. However, this requirement streamlines the registration procedures, which, as noted above, will adapt the existing group application option for newspapers. Under that option, the same person or entity must be named as the author and copyright claimant, and each issue must be a work made for hire. The Office retains the same requirements for the news websites option to minimize the need for additional development time that would otherwise be required.

Additionally, under general Copyright Office practice, if the author and claimant are not the same person, the applicant is statutorily required to provide a transfer statement explaining how the claimant acquired all of the rights initially belonging to the author. 74 If an applicant names a third party as the copyright claimant, but fails to provide a transfer statement, then the Office must correspond to determine whether the claimant actually owns all of the exclusive rights in the works, which delays the registration decision. The corresponding additional time and costs that the Office would incur are inconsistent with the reduced fee for examination of multiple collective works.

Moreover, imposing a work made for hire limitation is consistent with the goal of this rulemaking, which is to address obstacles to registering online news content produced by news publishers, who often also publish newspapers. Based on its experience with the existing group newspaper registrations, the Office expects that this requirement will produce an optimal public record, while reducing the administrative burden that these claims impose. The final rule accordingly retains the work made for hire requirement. Applicants who do not qualify for the option may still register their works individually using the Standard Application.

The Office invited public comments on whether it should give applicants the opportunity to provide additional information, such as individual article or photograph titles, as part of this group registration option. Commenters expressed support for the implementation of an opportunity to include granular information concerning individual component works at the applicant's discretion. 75 The Authors Guild noted that “in the event an individual article is the subject of a later infringement action, the applicant may need to rely on its own recordkeeping to establish that the article was on the website during the period covered by the registration.”  76 It concluded, “[t]he listing of individual titles or other information on the application may provide additional evidence relevant to that showing.”  77 The Office agrees and will provide instructions on its website explaining how applicants may submit additional information regarding component works on an optional basis. 78

The Office also invited public comments on the availability and effectiveness of technological solutions for saving or archiving websites that could assist or supplement news websites' recordkeeping efforts while also informing the public of the contents of the website and/or any updates registered. The Office suggested that applicants may provide in the “Note to Office” field additional information regarding the contents of the work, such as archived URLs that capture the complete content of each collective work submitted for registration. The Copyright Alliance expressed support for this suggestion, provided that doing so is voluntary. 79 Therefore the Office encourages applicants to submit archived URLs in the “Note to Office” field on a voluntary basis.

The NPRM provided that the filing fee for this option will be $95, the same fee that currently applies to a claim in a group of newspapers. It noted that the Office believes it is reasonable to charge the same fee as for the group newspaper option, given the similarities in expected workflow associated with examining these claims. The NMA expressed support for this modest fee, describing it as “reasonable and unarbitrary.”  80 The final rule establishes this fee.

The NPRM proposed that for each collective work submitted under this group registration option, applicants must “submit a deposit that is sufficient to identify some of the updates that were made to the website.”  81 The Office specified that “applicants will need to submit separate PDF files that each contain a complete copy of the home page for the site. Each PDF must show how the home page appeared at a specific point during each day of the calendar month when new updates were published on the site.”  82 Additionally, the NPRM required that each deposit demonstrate “that the home page contains a sufficient degree of selection, coordination, and/or arrangement to be registered as a collective work.”  83 Several commenters requested that the Office consider different deposit requirements, though commenters varied on the specific changes they requested or discussed deposits generally. The Office addresses each suggested change below.

After considering NMA's request to resolve a purported ambiguity in the proposed rule regarding the time of day for daily deposits of home pages, the Office is clarifying the time period for capturing deposits. 84 The language within section (m)(6)(i) requiring “[e]ach PDF [to] show how the home page appeared at a specific point during each day of the calendar month” does not require applicants to capture PDFs of home pages at the same exact time every day. 85 Instead, PDFs of home pages must show how the home page appeared at some point during each day, in addition to satisfying other applicable deposit requirements.

Three commenters specifically requested that the Office expand the identifying material it will accept to encompass more than “a complete copy of the home page for the site.”  86 The NAB stated that “the Office should amend the deposit requirements proposed in § 202.4(m)(6)(i) to allow for the submission of a copy of identifying material in lieu of a complete copy of the home page.”  87 It explained that “many news websites utilize an `infinite scroll' feature that automatically and continuously loads more content as users scroll down the web page” making it “technologically impossible for an applicant to satisfy the deposit requirement of providing a PDF of the home page in its entirety.”  88 Copyright Alliance echoed this sentiment stating “a user is able to continuously reveal additional content on the web page without having to leave the page to view the content on a separate web page. For such web pages, it is not possible to capture an `entire copy' of the page since the user can endlessly reveal the contents of the page.”  89 Similarly, NMA noted that, due to the difficulties posed by “extensive or close-to-infinite scroll,” the Office should clarify that an applicant could meet the deposit requirement “as long as [the PDF] captures the masthead, URL identifier, and a defined minimum amount of the homepage (which in most cases will encompass all of it), including representative updates from the previous deposit copy.”  90

After considering these comments, the Office concludes that the requested modification to the proposed rule is reasonable and supports the overall goal of this group registration option. Accordingly, the final rule includes an alternative to the “complete copy of the home page” requirement where submitting a complete copy is not feasible due to the size or continuous nature of the home page. In such circumstances, applicants may “submit the first 25 pages of the home page that demonstrates updates from the previous deposit copy.” This portion of the rule is designed to decrease the burden on applicants that wish to utilize this group registration option, but are unable to satisfy the “complete copy” deposit requirement. The Office believes that this modification will facilitate registration, while also ensuring that the deposit provided is sufficient to identify the work and the copyrightable authorship covered by the registration. Applicants utilizing this provision are advised that any deposit should only include updates within the time period covered by the application. In the event that an applicant includes updates outside the time period, they would be considered previously published material, and would not be covered by the registration. Additionally, as stated in the NPRM, if a copyright owner is required to prove to a court or an alleged infringer “the specific contents of a website at any particular point in time, it will need to preserve and maintain its own copy of the site and rely on its own recordkeeping to provide such proof.”  91

NWU, NPPA, and NASW disagreed that a home page would constitute sufficient identifying material for registration. 92 They asserted that “requiring deposit of PDFs of images of the home page is disconnected from the reality that updates aren't necessarily visible on the `home page' of a website.”  93 While “[u]pdates appear on the home pages of some—but far from all—newspaper publishers' websites,” the home pages of other websites, such as self-published or references websites, are “mostly or entirely static,” with updates occurring on other “inside” pages that are not indexed or referenced on the home page. 94 Instead, NWU, NPPA, and NASW suggested that the Office accept a “sitemap page or set of sitemap pages,” “as the way to indicate which pages of a site have most recently been added or modified, and when.”  95 Sitemaps, they alleged, “are structured, standardized, machine-readable, and human-readable” and “all updates in a given period can be identified by a single sitemap or set of sitemaps,” which the Office could “use[ ] immediately.”  96

The Office declines to permit applicants to submit a sitemap page or a set of sitemap pages as identifying material for several reasons. First, it is not clear that sitemaps themselves provide information that would allow an examiner to determine whether each collective work within the group application contains sufficient creative selection, coordination, or arrangement. 97 Second, sitemaps do not satisfy the public notice function that deposits serve, as they do not display the work requested for registration and are not sufficient to identify the updates made to the websites. 98 As explained in the NPRM, any deposit requirement must “satisfy the public notice function of capturing, and making available for public inspection, a deposit that should be sufficient to identify” the work covered by the application. 99 Lastly, accepting sitemap deposits would likely not aid in efficiency as suggested. 100 If an examiner receives a sitemap, they would likely need to correspond with the applicant to determine what exactly the application covers. For these reasons, the Office declines to modify the final rule to include sitemaps.

Commenters also suggested that the Office accept deposits comprised of annotated Portable Document Formats (“PDFs”)  101 or PDF deposits of apps. 102 Specifically, one commenter encouraged the Office to consider accepting annotated PDFs of a single web page, where “[a]nnotations could circle content that is not included in registration, such as licensed content as compared to original news organization content” or “content already registered.”  103 Other commenters, including Copyright Alliance, NMA, and the Authors Guild, proposed that the Office should accept PDFs that “contain a complete copy of the home page of . . . mobile application[s]. ”  104 They discussed the ease with which applicants could submit app PDFs  105 and how PDFs address record-keeping concerns and “concerns over whether the collective works stem from the same source.”  106 Copyright Alliance and NMA also suggested that the absence of a uniform resource locator (“URL”) from app PDFs, a requirement of the proposed rule, is immaterial because apps “generally prominently feature the logo or other visible identifier of the publication in question” and news content on an app is “organized and contained,” similar to a website. 107 NMA further recommended that because the USPTO has “long accepted” app screenshots for trademark specimens, subject to certain requirements, the Office should adopt similar standards. 108

The Office declines to permit parties to submit annotated PDFs of a single web page. As discussed above, each update will be registered as a collective work. For that reason, there is no need to identify component works that are not owned by the claimant or component works that have been previously registered, because as a general rule, a registration for a collective work does not cover this type of preexisting material.

The Office also declines to accept PDF deposits of apps to represent a news website. Initially, it is unclear whether the selection, coordination, and/or arrangement of material encompassed within the PDFs would be identical to the selection, coordination, and/or arrangement of a website's home page, regardless of whether the same content is present on both. 109 Further, the Office continues to believe that the rule's deposit regulations offer flexibility, while still satisfying the public notice function of deposits. The regulation will permit applicants to submit a complete copy of the website's home page, and when that is not feasible due to the size or continuous nature of the home page, applicants may submit the first 25 pages of the home page demonstrating updates from the previous deposit copy.

Commenters made additional suggestions and remarks on the proposed rule's deposit requirements and the Office's deposit requirements generally. With respect to the Office's modernization efforts, ABA-IPL suggested that the Office consider generally expanding the “format of deposit copies accepted” and regularly reviewing and updating registration regulations. 110 ABA-IPL stated that the Office should accept deposits in .xml format for regularly updated news content, such as content covered under the proposed rule, “as [.xml] and similar formats are widely used in digital content creation and management.”  111 The University of Michigan Library (“UM-Library”) expressed concerns with the proposed regulations regarding fixation and preservation. 112 They asserted that the proposed deposit requirements are not “sufficiently fixed for copyright purposes” and that if deposit “materials are not collected and preserved—even as facsimiles or through emulation—then as a practical matter there will be a huge gap in the possibilities for research, scholarship, and understanding.”

The Office is sympathetic to commenters' desires to expand the file formats accepted for deposit purposes generally, including regularly updated news content. As stated above and in the NPRM, the current registration system only accepts certain file types. 113 The Office anticipates revisiting its acceptable file formats in connection with ongoing improvements to its technology systems. Until then, the Office continues to actively engage in research about the suitability of other file formats. 114

The Office appreciates the fixation and preservation concerns about the proposed deposit requirements, codified in the final rule. It continues to believe, however, that the deposit requirements are sufficient. As stated above and in the NPRM, the Copyright Act imbues the Register with broad authority to accept identifying material in lieu of complete copies or phonorecords  115 where such copies or phonorecords are “bulky, unwieldly, easily broken, or otherwise impractical to [serve] . . . as records identifying the work[s] registered.”  116 This provision, and its legislative history, give the Register flexibility in determining the deposit requirements when identifying material is involved, and the Office has used this authority in the past. Within this rulemaking, the Office believes the proposed deposit requirements are appropriate, and less burdensome than general deposit requirements for websites. 117 As the Office discussed in the NPRM, the proposed deposit requirements satisfy the public notice function and still require that deposits sufficiently “identify some of the updates” made to the website. 118 Any fixation concerns may be alleviated by the fact that the proposed regulations are merely registration deposit requirements. They do not relieve a registrant from complying with other legal obligations, such as the obligation to maintain and preserve copies of a website, including its content, in the context of an infringement claim. 119

The NPRM explained that the Office planned to use one of its existing group registration application forms to process these claims. Specifically, it said applicants would be required to submit their claims through the current electronic registration system using the application designated for a group of newspaper issues. None of the commenters objected to this proposal.

After consulting with the Library of Congress's Office of the Chief Information Officer, the Office determined that it would be feasible to create a separate application for news website claims that will be cloned from the corresponding application that is used for group newspaper claims. This should simplify the registration process for both applicants and Office staff by preventing potential confusion between claims involving newspaper issues and claims involving updates to a news website. The cloned application will include the same technical specifications and system validations that appear in the group newspaper form. The final rule has been modified to reflect this change. Information and instructions on how to submit these claims will be provided in the application itself and on a dedicated page on the Office's website.

Based on requests from affected parties for the expeditious implementation of the rule  120 and the absence of arguments supporting a delay, the Office finds that good cause exists to issue these regulations as a final rule with an immediate effective date. Commenters have presented a record supporting “the demonstrable urgency of the conditions [the rule is] designed to correct.”  121 Finally, the registration option authorized by the final rule will be available to registrants at or near the rule's publication date.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office amends 37 CFR parts 201 and 202 as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our April 10, 2024 proposal (89 FR 25216). In that document we proposed to approve elements of Colorado's Marginal ozone nonattainment SIP submission, namely its 2017 base year emissions inventory and its certification that its APEN reporting program and the addition of an annual certification requirement meet the CAA's emission statement rule requirements. We found that these two SIP elements were prepared in accordance with the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) (for emissions inventories) and 182(a)(3)(B) (for emission statement rules). We also proposed to approve revisions to Regulation Number 3, including incorporation of updated global warming potentials and the removal of outdated language. The EPA is finalizing its proposed approval of the 2017 base year emissions inventory, emission statement rule certification, and revisions to Regulation Number 3 that were submitted by the State of Colorado.

EPA held a 30-day comment period on the proposed rulemaking for this action, beginning on April 10, 2024, and ending on May 10, 2024. No comments were received.

For the reasons described in our April 10, 2024 notice of proposed rulemaking at 89 FR 25216, we are taking final action to approve elements of Colorado's July 27, 2020, March 22, 2021, and June 26, 2023 SIP Submittals. Specifically, we are approving Colorado's 2017 base year emissions inventory under CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1). We are approving Colorado's certification of its APEN reporting program (July 27, 2020 SIP Submittal) and the addition of the annual certification requirement in section II.A.3. to Regulation Number 3, Part A (June 26, 2023 SIP Submittal) as meeting the emission statement rule requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). We are also approving certain revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part A, specifically to the date of incorporation by reference of global warming potentials in sections 1.B.10 and 1.B.44.b.(i) (March 22, 2021 and June 26, 2023 SIP Submittals) and to the computation of the mass of carbon dioxide equivalent in section 1.B.44.b.(i) (June 26, 2023 SIP Submittal).

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Regulation Number 3, Part A as described in sections I. and III. of this preamble and set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”

Colorado did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of Executive Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 20, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS, and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

The commercial sector for golden tilefish comprises the longline and hook-and-line components. The commercial golden tilefish ACL is allocated 75 percent to the longline component and 25 percent to the hook-and-line component. The total commercial ACL in 2024, which is equivalent to the total commercial quota, is 433,216 pounds (lb) or 196,503 kilograms (kg) in gutted weight. The longline component quota for 2024 is 324,912 lb (147,378 kg) in gutted weight [50 CFR 622.190(a)(2)(iii)(B)].

On June 8, 2024, NMFS closed the commercial longline component for golden tilefish for the rest of the 2024 fishing year when NMFS previously determined that the commercial quota for the golden tilefish longline component in the South Atlantic would be reached, as required under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(ii) (89 FR 48338, June 6, 2024). After the longline component quota is reached or is projected to be reached, golden tilefish may not be commercially fished or possessed by a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement. However, a more recent estimation of golden tilefish landings harvested by longline gear indicates that the commercial longline ACL for golden tilefish has not been met.

Consistent with regulations at 50 CFR 622.8(c), NMFS temporarily re-opens the commercial longline component for golden tilefish as specified in the DATES section. The commercial longline component will remain open for 8 days to allow for the commercial longline ACL to be reached. NMFS has determined that this re-opening will allow an additional opportunity to commercially harvest the golden tilefish longline component quota while minimizing the risk of exceeding the commercial ACL. The commercial longline component will again be closed from August 1, 2024, through the end of 2024.

The sale or purchase of longline-caught golden tilefish taken from South Atlantic Federal waters is prohibited during the commercial longline closure. The operator of a vessel with a valid Federal commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper and a valid commercial longline endorsement for golden tilefish having golden tilefish on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such golden tilefish before the closure. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of longline-caught golden tilefish that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold before August 1, 2024, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.

Also during the commercial longline closure, golden tilefish may still be commercially harvested using hook-and-line gear while the commercial hook-and-line component is open. However, a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement is not eligible to fish for or possess golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line commercial trip limit, as specified in 50 CFR 622.191(a)(2)(ii). The operator of a vessel issued a Federal commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper and a commercial longline endorsement for golden tilefish with golden tilefish on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such golden tilefish before the commercial longline closure.

NMFS closed the recreational harvest of golden tilefish in the South Atlantic on March 1, 2024, because those landings reached its ACL for the 2024 fishing year (89 FR 14415, February 27, 2024). Therefore, there is no allowable harvest of golden tilefish under the recreational bag and possession limits, and all harvest or possession of golden tilefish in or from South Atlantic Federal waters is prohibited by a person on a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement. Additionally, the recreational bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure apply to a person on a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1).

The 2025 fishing season for the commercial harvest of South Atlantic golden tilefish with bottom longline gear opens again on January 15, 2025 [50 CFR 622.183(b)(11)].

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.8(c), 622.190(a)(2)(iii), and 622.193(a)(1)(ii), issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment is unnecessary. Such procedure is unnecessary, because the regulations associated with the commercial quota for the longline component of golden tilefish and a re-opening to provide an opportunity for the quota to be harvested have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the commercial longline component re-opening.

For the reasons just stated, there is also good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes greater amberjack, is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council, approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and is 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 Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and the regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and to protect marine ecosystems.

On May 15, 2024, NMFS published a proposed rule for the framework action and requested public comment (89 FR 42413).

The greater amberjack stock in the Gulf has been overfished since 2001. To help rebuild the stock, NMFS has implemented several modifications to the rebuilding plan, including changes to the commercial and recreational catch levels, and changes to management measures intended to constrain harvest and extend the commercial and recreational seasons. NMFS recently implemented Amendment 54 to the FMP, which modified the Gulf greater amberjack rebuilding time period and substantially reduced the sector-specific annual catch limits (ACLs) and ACTs (88 FR 39193, June 15, 2023). Implementation of that final rule and Amendment 54 is expected to result in the stock rebuilding by 2027.

In the Gulf, greater amberjack is not a common target species for the reef fish commercial sector, with the majority of trips landing less than 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight (520 lb (236 kg), round weight) of the species. As described at 50 CFR 622.41(a)(1), when commercial landings for greater amberjack reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACT, which is codified as the commercial quota, NMFS closes the commercial sector for the remainder of the fishing year. Any overage of the commercial ACL results in both a reduction of the commercial ACT and the commercial ACL in the following fishing year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage.

In 2020, NMFS implemented a framework action that set the current Gulf greater amberjack commercial trip limit to 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight (1,040 lb (472 kg), round weight) (85 FR 20611, April 14, 2020). That framework action and final rule also included a reduction in the trip limit to 250 lb (113 kg), gutted weight (260 lb (118 kg), round weight) when 75 percent of the commercial quota was reached. As described in the current framework action, under the current trip limit, the trip limit reduction was projected to occur in February with a season closure occurring in June.

In the current framework action, the Council is recommending that NMFS further reduce the commercial trip limit due to the substantial catch limit reductions implemented by Amendment 54 to lengthen the commercial fishing season. The framework action would reduce the commercial trip limit for Gulf greater amberjack to seven fish, which is approximately equal to 210 lb (95 kg), gutted weight (218 lb (99 kg), round weight). This reduction in the trip limit is expected to extend the commercial season until September unless an overage of the commercial ACL occurs in the prior fishing year, which then would require a reduction in the commercial ACL and ACT and result in a reduction in the season length. NMFS notes that in the 2023 fishing year, the commercial ACL was exceeded by 35,280 lb (16,003 kg), round weight, resulting in a reduction of the commercial ACL and ACT for the 2024 fishing year (see 88 FR 80995, November 21, 2023). For the 2024 fishing year, NMFS projected that the adjusted commercial ACT would be met on June 30, 2024, and so NMFS prohibited the commercial harvest and possession of Gulf greater amberjack on June 30, 2024 (89 FR 50529, June 14, 2024).

As described in the framework action, this reduction of the trip limit to seven fish is expected to eliminate the remaining direct commercial harvest trips for greater amberjack. The Council recognized that the greater amberjack stock is overfished and has not rebuilt as expected. Thus, the Council determined that a more cautious approach was warranted and chose to recommend reducing the commercial trip limit.

At its October 2023 meeting, the Council discussed the impact of the required reduction to the 2024 commercial catch limits as a result of landings exceeding the ACL in 2023. The Council expressed concern about constraining landings to the reduced catch limits under the current trip limit when the commercial season opened in January 2024, which could have potentially resulted in another commercial overage in 2024 and further reduced the catch limits for 2025. Since the reduced commercial trip limit in this final rule would not be effective until later in 2024, the Council requested that NMFS implement an emergency action to reduce the commercial trip limit to seven fish. NMFS and the Council expected this lower trip limit to benefit the greater amberjack stock by increasing the duration of the commercial open season, which is expected to result in fewer regulatory discards ( i.e., discards required after the quota has been reached). On December 18, 2023, a final temporary rule for emergency action for Gulf greater amberjack was published in the Federal Register and was effective through June 15, 2024 (88 FR 87365).

The Council decided to specify the commercial trip limit in numbers of fish instead of pounds of fish based in part on recommendations from its Reef Fish Advisory Panel (AP) and the Law Enforcement Technical Committee on their preferred way to specify the trip limit. A trip limit in numbers of fish is more enforceable and reduces the chance of commercial fishermen exceeding the trip limit.

The Council decided that the reduced trip limit, which would extend the commercial fishing season as long as practicable, was a more desirable solution. The new commercial trip limit is expected to allow for as many fishing days as practicable while reducing the chance of exceeding the reduced lower catch limits implemented under the final rule for Amendment 54, and addresses needs of the rebuilding plan.

In the framework action, the Council also decided to recommend modifying the Gulf greater amberjack recreational fixed closed season in order to extend the recreational fishing season and to protect greater amberjack spawning. As described in the framework action, under the current recreational season structure which opens annually on August 1, projections indicate that the season would only last approximately 3 weeks. For the recreational sector, when recreational landings for greater amberjack reach or are projected to reach the recreational ACT, NMFS closes the sector for the remainder of the fishing year and any overage of the recreational ACL is reduced from the following fishing year's recreational ACT and ACL (50 CFR 622.41(a)(2)). NMFS notes that when the Gulf greater amberjack recreational sector is closed, the species remains a popular catch and release fish.

In 2012, the final rule implementing Amendment 35 established a Gulf greater amberjack recreational fixed closed season of June 1 to July 31 to restrict harvest during times of peak recreational fishing. In 2017, NMFS implemented a framework action under the FMP to set the Gulf greater amberjack recreational fixed closed season to January 1 through June 31 to protect greater amberjack spawning and allow the Council additional time to consider further modify the fixed closed season (82 FR 61485, December 28, 2017). In 2018, NMFS implemented a framework action under the FMP that revised the recreational fishing year from the calendar year (January 1 through December 31) to be from August 1 through July 31, and set the current Gulf greater amberjack recreational fixed closed season to be from November 1 through April 30 and from June 1 through July 31 (83 FR 13426, March 29, 2018). This means that until the recreational ACT is reached or projected to be reached, recreational harvest would be allowed during the months of August through October, and during the month of May. The current fixed closed season prohibits harvest during the peak greater amberjack spawning period in the majority of the Gulf ( i.e., March and April) and allows for both a fall and spring recreational season if no in-season closure is required.

For the present action, the Council decided to recommend modifying the recreational fixed closed season in response to the substantial recreational catch limit reductions implemented through the final rule for Amendment 54 in order to lengthen the recreational fishing season and to protect the greater amberjack stock during all documented spawning periods in the Gulf ( i.e., March through June). This change to the recreational fixed closed season, from the current closures of January 1 through April 30, from June 1 through July 31, and from November 1 through December 31, each year, to new closures from January 1 through August 31, and from November 1 through December 31, each year, would eliminate the spring recreational season. The revised recreational closure would allow for protection of the stock during the entire spawning period in the Gulf.

As described in the framework action, this fixed closed season modification is projected to allow the recreational fishing season to be open for all of September and most of October ( i.e., projected to extend to October 26th) each year. However, if recreational effort were to shift as a result of the fixed closed season change, then it is possible a recreational closure may occur earlier. For the revised recreational fixed closed season, the Council determined that a more cautious approach for management was warranted in order to meet the rebuilding timeline.

This final rule revises the commercial trip limit and recreational fixed closed season for Gulf greater amberjack.

The existing regulations set the commercial trip limit for Gulf greater amberjack at 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight (1,040 lb (472 kg), round weight), with a reduction to 250 lb (113 kg), gutted weight (260 lb (118 kg), round weight) when 75 percent of the commercial quota has been reached. This final rule changes the commercial trip limit to seven fish. Once the commercial quota has been reached, the commercial sector will close and commercial harvest is prohibited (50 CFR 622.41(a)(1)(i)).

As described in the framework action, the trip limit reduction to seven fish ( i.e., approximately 210 lb (95 kg), gutted weight (218 lb (99 kg), round weight) is expected to extend the length of the commercial fishing season into September, which would not occur under the status quo commercial trip limit. While the commercial ACT has been met for the 2024 season and an in-season closure began on June 30 (89 FR 50529, June 14, 2024), if the commercial ACL is not exceeded in 2024, an in-season closure under a seven fish trip limit is expected to occur in September of 2025.

In recommending this trip limit, the Council recognized that the Gulf greater amberjack stock is overfished and has not rebuilt as expected under the current and previous rebuilding plans. NMFS determined, in accordance with the Council's findings, that a more cautious approach for the commercial sector was warranted and chose to substantially reduce the commercial trip limit.

The current Gulf greater amberjack recreational fixed closed season is from January 1 through April 30, June 1 through July 31, and November 1 through December 31, each year. This final rule revises the closed season to January 1 through August 31, and November 1 through December 31, each year. This results in the recreational season being scheduled to be open from September 1 through October 31, each year. As described in the Classification of this final rule, NMFS has found good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date for changes to the Gulf greater amberjack recreational fixed closed season at 50 CFR 622.34(c). Based on the timing of the rulemaking for this final rule, this has been done to avoid the recreational season opening on August 1, 2024, and to instead open on September 1, 2024, consistent with the revisions in this final rule and the framework action. This will allow NMFS to evaluate landings from the May 2023 portion of the recreational season of the previous fishing year and determine if an adjustment would be needed to the recreational ACL and ACT in the next fishing year. NMFS notes that during the closure, the recreational bag and possession limit for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is zero (50 CFR 622.34(c)).

In addition to the Gulf greater amberjack management measures in the framework action, this final rule clarifies language related to the Gulf red snapper Federal charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) component quota (50 CFR 622.39(a)(2)(i)(B)) and the Gulf red snapper Federal for-hire component ACT (50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(iii)(B)). When Amendment 40 to the FMP was implemented in 2015 and allocated the recreational ACL (quota) between the Federal for-hire and private angling components, the provisions referenced above specified that the Federal for-hire quota and ACT apply “to vessels that have been issued a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year.” (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015). This language was necessary to maintain the selected allocation between the components by allowing only those vessels issued the Federal for-hire permit during the fishing year to harvest red snapper under the for-hire component quota.

Subsequently, NMFS determined that it would be helpful to clarify these provisions to specify the restrictions on harvest and possession of red snapper when the for-hire season is closed by adding the following language: “A person aboard a vessel that has been issued a charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year may not harvest or possess red snapper in or from the Gulf when the Federal charter vessel/headboat component is closed” (85 FR 6819, February 6, 2020; 88 FR 37475 June 8, 2023). In this final rule, and consistent with Amendment 40, NMFS adds additional clarifying language to specify the restrictions on harvest and possession of red snapper when the for-hire season is open. This language provides that when the Federal for-hire component is open, a person on board a vessel that has been issued a for-hire permit for Gulf reef fish at any time during the fishing year may harvest or possess red snapper in or from the Gulf only when the vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat.

NMFS received four comment submissions in response to the proposed rule for the framework action. Of the comments contained in these submissions, one expressed general support for the rule. One comment was generally against the proposed rule, but expressed support for the closure of the greater amberjack recreational season during red snapper season. One comment suggested that fishing seasons for greater amberjack and other Gulf reef fish species ( e.g., red snapper and groupers) should overlap in order to reduce discards and decrease overall mortality of each of these reef fish species. The commenter also suggested reducing the greater amberjack recreational bag limit, which was beyond the scope of the proposed rule. The final comment did not support concurrent open recreational seasons for Gulf reef fish species, since the timing of seasons could negatively impact recreational fishermen, especially the for-hire component. Specific comments related to the proposed rule and the framework action are summarized below and followed by NMFS' respective responses. There have been no changes to the proposed rule as a result of public comment.

Comment 1: Recreational fishing seasons for greater amberjack and other Gulf reef fish species ( e.g., red snapper, groupers) should overlap in order to reduce discards and decrease overall mortality of each of these reef fish species. Also, consideration should be given to establishing a combined recreational fishing season for all reef fish of 60 days or less.

Response: In the framework action, the Council recommended that the greater amberjack recreational fishing season open on September 1, instead of the current season where the sector is open in May and then again opens on August 1. Changing the recreational greater amberjack season start date to September 1 and removing the months of May and August from the open season is expected to increase the number of greater amberjack fishing days available to the recreational sector before the recreational ACT would be projected to be met. Also, modifying the fixed closed season as proposed would protect greater amberjack during spawning months and would allow fishing during a time when recreational effort is expected to be less than the previous open months of May and August.

A September 1 recreational season opening date provides overlap with the recreational fishing season opening date for Gulf gag, which is also September 1, as suggested by this comment. This overlap could result in fewer greater amberjack discards when targeting gag. While a concurrent fishing season for all reef fish could reduce discards, a goal of the Council is to maximize recreational fishing opportunities throughout the year while constraining harvest to allowable catch levels. This often requires different management measures such as fishing seasons for different reef fish species due to different stock statuses, spawning periods, and seasonal distributions. A single concurrent recreational fishing season for all reef fish species is not practical to help achieve OY within the fishery and maintain recreational fishing opportunities throughout the Gulf.

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 framework action, the FMP, 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 final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this rule. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of any significant issues raised by public comment in response to the IRFA, any applicable NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. NMFS did not receive any public comments with respect to the IRFA. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the FRFA follows.

The objectives of this final rule are to maintain commercial and recreational access to the greater amberjack component of the Gulf reef fish fishery, given the substantial ACL decreases under the Gulf greater amberjack rebuilding plan in Amendment 54, and ensure anglers and for-hire vessel operators understand that a person on a vessel that has been issued a Gulf for-hire permit at any time during the fishing year can only harvest red snapper if the vessel is operating as a for-hire vessel. All monetary estimates in the following analysis are in 2021 dollars.

This final rule reduces the commercial trip limit for greater amberjack from 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight (1,040 lb (472 kg), round weight), with a decrease in the trip limit to 250 lb (113 kg), gutted weight, 260 lb (118 kg), round weight, when 75 percent of the commercial quota has been reached, to seven fish. This final rule also establishes the new commercial trip limit based on numbers of fish rather than on weight. As described in the framework action, a trip limit of seven fish is approximately equal to 210 lb (95 kg), gutted weight (218 lb (99 kg), round weight).

This final rule also modifies the recreational fixed closed season for Gulf greater amberjack from the original dates of November 1 through April 30 and June 1 through July 31 to the new dates of August 1 through August 31 and November 1 through July 31.

This final rule also clarifies language in the regulations related to the Gulf red snapper Federal charter vessel/headboat component quota and the Gulf red snapper Federal charter vessel/headboat component ACT. Specifically, the regulations will be modified to clarify that a person on a vessel issued a Gulf for-hire permit at any time during the fishing year can only harvest red snapper if the vessel is operating as a for-hire vessel. Given these actions, this final rule is expected to regulate commercial fishing businesses and charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) fishing businesses that harvest Gulf greater amberjack. The action to clarify existing regulations related to the Gulf red snapper Federal charter vessel/headboat component quota and the Gulf red snapper Federal charter vessel/headboat component ACT is administrative in nature, and thus would not regulate or directly affect any entities.

A valid commercial Gulf reef fish vessel permit is required in order for commercial fishing vessels to legally harvest greater amberjack in the Gulf. At the end of 2020, 837 vessels possessed valid commercial Gulf reef fish vessel permits. However, not all vessels with a commercial Gulf reef fish permit actually harvest greater amberjack in the Gulf. From 2017 through 2021, the average number of vessels that commercially harvested Gulf greater amberjack was 199. Ownership data regarding vessels that harvest Gulf greater amberjack are incomplete, which prohibits accurately determining affiliations between these particular vessels. Since determining ownership affiliations is not currently feasible, for the purposes of this analysis, NMFS assumes each of these vessels is independently owned by a single business. NMFS expects this assumption to result in an overestimate of the actual number of commercial fishing businesses regulated by this final rule. Thus, it is assumed this final rule would regulate 199 commercial fishing businesses.

Although the changes to the recreational fixed closed season will apply to recreational private anglers, the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) does not consider recreational private anglers to be entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions (see 5 U.S.C. 601(6) and 601(3)-(5)). Recreational private anglers are not businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions and so they are outside the scope of this analysis (see 5 U.S.C. 603).

A valid Federal charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) permit for Gulf reef fish is required to legally harvest greater amberjack in the Gulf from a for-hire vessel. NMFS does not possess complete ownership data for vessels that hold charter vessel/headboat Gulf reef fish vessel permits and thus potentially harvest greater amberjack. Therefore, accurately determining affiliations between these vessels and the businesses that own them is not currently feasible. As a result, for purposes of this analysis, NMFS assumes each for-hire vessel is independently owned by a single business, which is expected to result in an overestimate of the actual number of for-hire fishing businesses regulated by this final rule.

NMFS also does not have data indicating how many for-hire vessels actually harvest Gulf greater amberjack in a given year. In 2020, there were 1,289 vessels with valid charter-headboat Gulf reef fish vessel permits. Of these 1,289 vessels, 803 were homeported in Florida. Of these 803 vessels, 62 are primarily used for commercial fishing rather than for-hire fishing purposes and thus are not considered for-hire fishing businesses ( i.e., 1,227 vessels are for-hire fishing businesses). In addition, 46 of the permitted vessels are considered headboats. However, headboats take a relatively large, diverse set of anglers to harvest a diverse range of species on a trip and therefore do not typically target a particular species. Therefore, NMFS assumes that no headboat trips would be canceled, and thus no headboats would be directly affected as a result of this final rule.

Charter vessels often target greater amberjack. Of the 803 vessels with valid charter-headboat Gulf reef fish vessel permits that are homeported in Florida, 62 are dually permitted commercial and charter vessel-headboats but are primarily commercial fishing vessels, and 46 are headboats, while the remaining 695 are charter vessels. As described in the framework action, 76 percent of charter vessels with valid charter-headboat permits in the Gulf were active in 2017 ( i.e., 24 percent were not fishing). A charter vessel would only be directly affected by this final rule if it is fishing. Given this information, NMFS' best estimate of the number of charter vessels that are likely to target Gulf greater amberjack in a given year is 528. Thus, this final rule is estimated to regulate 528 for-hire fishing businesses.

For RFA purposes, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 114111 (50 CFR 200.2)). A business primarily involved in the commercial fishing industry is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts ( i.e., revenue) are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. From 2017 through 2021, the maximum annual gross revenue earned by a single commercial reef fish vessel during this time was about $3.19 million, while the average annual gross revenue for a vessel commercially harvesting Gulf greater amberjack was $194,894. Based on this information, all commercial fishing businesses regulated by this final rule are determined to be small entities for the purpose of this analysis.

For other industries, the Small Business Administration has established size standards for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including for-hire businesses (NAICS code 487210). A business primarily involved in for-hire fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and has annual receipts ( i.e., revenue) not in excess of $14.0 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The maximum annual gross revenue for a single headboat in the Gulf was about $1.45 million in 2017. On average, annual gross revenue for headboats in the Gulf is about three times greater than the annual gross revenue for charter vessels, reflecting the fact that businesses that own charter vessels are typically smaller than businesses that own headboats. Based on this information, all for-hire fishing businesses regulated by this final rule are determined to be small businesses for the purpose of this analysis.

NMFS expects this final rule to directly affect 199 of the 837 commercial fishing businesses that possess a valid commercial Gulf reef fish permit (approximately 24 percent of those commercial fishing businesses). Further, NMFS expects this final rule to directly affect 528 of the 1,227 for-hire fishing businesses with valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permits in the Gulf reef fish fishery (approximately 43 percent of those for-hire fishing businesses). For the purpose of this analysis, all affected commercial and for-hire fishing businesses are small entities. Based on this information, NMFS expects the final rule to affect a substantial number of small entities.

For vessels that commercially harvest greater amberjack in the Gulf, currently available data indicate that economic profits are approximately 38 percent of annual average gross revenue. Given that their average annual gross revenue is $194,894, annual average economic profit per vessel is estimated to be approximately $74,060.

This final rule reduces the commercial trip limit for greater amberjack to seven fish. As described in the framework action, a trip limit of seven fish is approximately equal to 210 lb (95 kg), gutted weight; 218 lb (99 kg), round weight. This final rule is expected to lengthen the commercial fishing season for greater amberjack.

Economic effects expected to result from changes in commercial trip limits would typically include changes in ex-vessel revenues and profits of commercial fishing businesses. However, based on the relatively small size of the greater amberjack commercial ACT and harvest projections, commercial fishing businesses are projected to harvest all of the allocated commercial quota regardless of the commercial trip limit. Therefore, changes in ex-vessel revenues and profits for commercial fishing businesses would not be expected to result from the action to change the commercial trip limit from 1,000 lb (454 kg) gutted weight, to seven fish.

Based on the most recent information available, average annual profit is $27,000 per charter vessel. Net Cash Flow per Angler Trip (CFpA) is the best available estimate of profit per angler trip by charter vessels. CFpA on charter vessels is estimated to be $149 per angler trip. Expected changes in charter trips targeting greater amberjack were derived from projected closure dates of the action to modify the recreational fixed closed season, and from the average distribution of greater amberjack target trips by wave and mode between 2018 and 2021. Assuming there is no shift in effort, it is estimated that the change in the recreational fixed closed season would result in a decrease to the number of charter trips targeting greater amberjack by 195 trips, and thereby decrease the profits to charter fishing businesses by $29,108. On average, this would decrease profits by $55 per vessel. Thus, economic profits are expected to be reduced by 0.2 percent on average per charter fishing business.

Three alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the action to modify the commercial trip limit for Gulf greater amberjack and establish a new commercial trip limit based on numbers of fish rather than weight. The first alternative, the status quo, would have retained the current commercial trip limit for Gulf greater amberjack of 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight (1,040 lb (472 kg,) round weight). Additionally, when 75 percent of the ACT is projected to be reached, the commercial trip limit would have been reduced to 250 lb (113 kg), gutted weight (260 lb (118 kg) round weight). This alternative would have allowed some targeting of greater amberjack to continue. However, the Council did not recommend, and NMFS did not select, this alternative because it would not modify the trip limit from pounds of fish, which is more difficult to enforce compared to a count of fish. This alternative is also expected to result in the shortest overall season, which is contrary to the objectives of the framework action.

The second alternative would have established a commercial trip limit of eight fish. A trip limit of eight fish is approximately equal to 257 lb (117 kg), gutted weight; 267 lb (121 kg), round weight. The Council did not recommend and NMFS did not select this alternative because it is not expected to extend the commercial season as long as the action in this rule.

The third alternative would have established a commercial trip limit of five fish. A trip limit of five fish is approximately equal to 150 lb (68 kg), gutted weight; 155 lb (70 kg), round weight. Like the action in this rule, this alternative would have modified the trip limit from pounds of fish to numbers of fish. Although this trip limit would have resulted in the longest commercial season, the Council did not recommend and NMFS did not select this alternative because it was deemed to be too restrictive.

Two alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the action to modify the recreational fixed closed season for Gulf greater amberjack. The first alternative, the status quo, would have retained the current recreational fixed closed season of November 1 through April 30 and June 1 through July 31. As described in the framework action, this alternative was not selected because it results in the shortest projected season ( i.e., 21 days), which could promote race to fish ( i.e., derby-like) fishing behavior, and does not protect the stock during spawning periods. As described in the framework action, the Council also expressed a desire for a longer season length rather than a split season and a fishing season start date in August. Further, this alternative gives the least flexibility to for-hire operators with respect to rescheduling trips due to inclement weather or other constraints with the short-projected season. For all of the reasons stated above, NMFS agrees with the Council's decision not to recommend the status quo alternative.

The second alternative would have modified the recreational fixed closed season to be August 1 through August 31, October 1 through April 30, and June 1 through July 31. Although this alternative would have been expected to result in a greater amount of charter trips targeting Gulf greater amberjack compared to the status quo, it still allows for harvest during the spawning season. The Council did not recommend and NMFS did not select this alternative because it does not protect the stock during spawning periods as described in the framework action, which ultimately could have negative long-term effects if the stock does not rebuild.

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, NMFS prepared a fishery bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance guide. Copies of this final rule are available from the Southeast Regional Office, and the guide, i.e., fishery bulletin, will be sent to all known industry contacts in the Gulf reef fish fishery and be posted at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/tags/small-entity-compliance-guide?title=&field_species_vocab_target_id=&field_region_vocab_target_id%5B1000001121%5D=1000001121&sort_by=created.

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

NMFS finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date for changes to the Gulf greater amberjack recreational fixed closed season at 50 CFR 622.34(c). Among other measures, this final rule modifies the start of the summer recreational fishing season from August 1 to September 1. The recreational accountability measures require NMFS to prohibit harvest of greater amberjack when recreational landings reach or are projected to reach the recreational ACT (quota) and if recreational landings exceed the recreational ACL, then during the following fishing year, both the recreational quota and the recreational ACL must be reduced by the amount of any recreational ACL overage. NMFS will not have preliminary recreational landings estimates for the May 2024 open fishing season, which was the final month of recreational fishing during the 2023- 2024 recreational fishing year, until mid-August 2024. Therefore, if the changes to the recreational fixed closed season are not made effective by August 1, the recreational fishing season will open before NMFS can determine whether there needs to be an adjustment to the recreational ACT and ACL for the 2024-2025 fishing year. If significant harvest occurs before NMFS can make that determination, an overage of the 2024-2025 recreational ACL could occur, which would have negative impacts on the stock, which is overfished, as well as on those participants in the recreational sector who will have fewer days to fish for Gulf greater amberjack during the following fishing year. Given the time required to receive finalized recreational landings information from May 2024, NMFS is not yet able to make a determination about any recreational ACL overages from the 2023-2024 fishing year. A waiver of the 30-day delay in the effective date for changes to the Gulf greater amberjack recreational fixed closed season will allow the season to open September 1 as specified in the final rule and allow NMFS to determine whether an adjustment to the 2024-2025 catch limits are necessary. In addition, private anglers and Federal for-hire operators have been planning trips in anticipation of the expected September 1 opening and as explained in the framework action, opening on September 1 as opposed to August 1 is expected to allow for a greater number of fishing days, which will benefit private anglers and Federal for-hire operators. A waiver of the 30-day delay in effectiveness for the commercial trip limit specified in 50 CFR 622.43(a) is not necessary because commercial harvest is prohibited until December 31, 2024 as a result of an in-season commercial closure (89 FR 50529, June 14, 2024).

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