The purpose of this ANPRM is to gather public input on how FCA might revise similar entity regulations to:

• Clarify what activities of similar entities would be considered “functionally similar” to the activities of eligible borrowers, as the statute requires.

• Determine how similar entity transactions are consistent with the System's mission.

• Ensure eligibility determination for prospective similar entities belonging to corporate families that have parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related entities is consistently applied.

• Clarify what is required to support and document the determination of a prospective borrower as a qualified similar entity.

• Determine what financial instruments, including bonds, might qualify as “other extensions of credit” and “other technical and financial assistance” within the statutory and regulatory similar entity provisions.

Sections 3.1(11)(B) and 4.18A of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act), authorize banks for cooperatives, 1 Farm Credit Banks, and direct lender associations to participate in loans to similar entities. Congress added these sections granting this authority in 1992 and 1994.

Section 502 of the Farm Credit Banks and Associations Safety and Soundness Act of 1992  2 added Section 3.1(11)(B), which granted FCS banks operating under title III of the Act authority to participate in loans that non-System lenders originated for similar entities under certain conditions. In 1994, section 5 of the Farm Credit System Agricultural Export and Risk Management Act  3 added 4.18A, which expanded similar entity authority to System banks and associations that operate under titles I and II of the Act.

The similar entity provisions of the Act authorize FCS banks and associations to participate in multi-lender credits that non-System lenders originate for parties who are not eligible for loans from System lending institutions. Under the statute, qualified similar entities derive a majority of their income from, or have a majority of their assets invested in, the conduct of activities that are functionally similar to the activities of eligible borrowers. The applicable statutory provisions also specify that each System bank or association may participate in any loan of the type that it is authorized to make under titles I, II, or III of the Act, respectively. As explained in greater detail below, section 3.1(11)(B)(iii) of the Act establishes a broad and unique definition of “participate” and “participation” that applies only to similar entity transactions in which System lenders engage. Finally, similar entity participations are subject to: (1) an obligor limit of 10 percent of an FCS institution's total capital for a single credit risk, (2) a limit of less than 50 percent of the principal amount of each loan in which System lenders, individually, or collectively participate, and (3) a portfolio cap of 15 percent of the total assets of each System bank or association.

After Congress granted similar entity authority to the System, FCA enacted a new implementing regulation, § 613.3300. 4 Our similar entity regulation closely aligns with the text of sections 3.1(11)(B) and 4.18A of the Act. Similar entity lending is unique to the FCS and involves a complex and multi-faceted process to properly determine if an applicant qualifies for similar entity status. With this in mind, FCA decided to initiate a rulemaking to provide further direction as to which borrowers and activities fall within the System's similar entity authority, and to provide clearer guidance to all stakeholders. This ANPRM is the first stage of this rulemaking, which seeks public comment to assist FCA in clarifying the intricacies involved in determining whether an applicant qualifies as a similar entity.

Our regulation, § 613.3300(b), establishes three criteria for a similar entity transaction. The first part of this regulatory provision states that a Farm Credit bank or direct lender association may “participate” in a similar entity transaction with a non-FCS lender. As defined in § 613.3300(a)(1), the term “participate” or “participation,” for the purpose of similar entity lending, refers to multi-lender transactions including syndications, assignments, loan participations, subparticipations, other forms of the purchase, sale, or transfer of interest in loans, or other extensions of credit, or other technical and financial assistance. Therefore, for a similar entity transaction to enter the System it must be a participation as defined above, and System banks and associations must participate with one or more non-FCS lenders. Additionally, the System institution(s) participation interest in the transaction must not, at any time, equal or exceed 50 percent of the principal amount.

The second criterion that § 613.3300(b) establishes for any similar entity transaction is that a prospective borrower is ineligible to receive a loan from a System bank or association under part 613, subparts A and B. This part of § 613.3300(b) derives from § 613.3300(a)(2), which defines a similar entity as an ineligible party whose operations are functionally similar to the activities of eligible borrowers. The functionally similar activity is the foundational component for determining whether an ineligible party qualifies as a similar entity. System banks and associations that want to participate in such credits must engage in considerable analysis, support, and documentation to mitigate associated risks including, but not limited to, credit, reputational, legal, and financial.

The third criterion that § 613.3300(b) establishes for a similar entity transaction is that the loan purpose must be similar to those for which an eligible borrower could obtain financing from the participating FCS institution. This part relates to the similar entity definition in § 613.3300(a)(2), which ties a similar entity's activities to those performed by an eligible FCS borrower.

We request and encourage any interested person to submit comments on the questions below, and we ask that you support your comments with relevant information, data, or examples. We remind commenters that their comment letters and supporting documentation will be available to the public.

We have organized our questions to address the following: (1) the appropriate criteria used to determine whether the activities of a similar entity are ”functionally similar” to those of eligible borrowers, (2) the extent to which a prospective similar entity's activities are consistent with the FCS's statutory mission to extend credit and provide related services to agriculture and other eligible borrowers in rural communities, (3) the complexities of determining eligibility for corporate families that have parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related entities, and (4) the appropriate scope of “other extensions of credit or other technical and financial assistance” within similar entity lending authorities.

As explained earlier, the term “similar entity” is defined in the Act as a person or entity  5 that is not eligible for a loan from a Farm Credit bank or association but has operations that are functionally similar to a person who is eligible for a loan from the Farm Credit bank or association. In addition, the person or entity is required to derive a majority of its income from, or have a majority of its assets invested in, the conduct of activities that are functionally similar to the activities that are conducted by an eligible person. There are essentially two parts to this definition:

1. The “majority of income or assets invested” requirement, which refers to the similar entity (ineligible party).

2. The “conduct of activities that are performed by eligible borrowers” requirement, which refers to the ineligible party's operations that are functionally similar to the activities of eligible Farm Credit borrowers.

For a person or entity to qualify as a similar entity, both parts of the definition must be met. The first part of the definition is clear on the qualification requirement to derive a majority of its income from, or have a majority of its assets, invested in functionally similar activities. The common, everyday meaning of the term “majority” is an amount that is greater than 50 percent. 6 However, we would like to receive your input on what criteria should be used to determine what qualifies an activity as “functionally similar.”

The term “functionally similar” refers to the function of activities performed by an ineligible person or entity which are consistent with the activities performed by an eligible borrower. The activities related to the scope of financing for which an eligible borrower can receive financing tie directly back to the requirements set forth in FCA Regulation Part 613, subpart A and B, except for rural home financing (§ 613.3030). 7 The function of activities performed by a qualified similar entity are intended to align with the requirements under titles I, II, and III of the Act. Therefore, the differentiating factor between a similar entity and eligible borrower is in the eligibility status of the person or entity. For example, a person or entity that primarily processes or markets agricultural product(s) but does not meet the throughput or ownership requirements set forth in FCA regulation § 613.3010, would sufficiently qualify the “functionally similar” activity aspect of a similar entity through their processing or marketing of agricultural products. 8 However, if the same person or entity primarily processes and markets non-agricultural products, the activity does not seem “functionally similar” to the activities of eligible borrowers and, therefore, would not qualify as a similar entity. An entity that is neither a cooperative, nor its affiliated entity, but has activities that are functionally similar to processing and marketing, supply, or business service cooperatives (or their subsidiaries or affiliates) under § 613.3100(a)(1) could qualify as a similar entity depending on the connection of these activities to farmers, ranchers, or producers/harvesters of aquatic products. 9 We note that a prospective similar entity applicant that predominantly engages in activities or operations that are not functionally similar to the activities of eligible farmers, ranchers, aquatic producers and harvesters, their cooperatives, farm-related service business, or rural utilities, would not qualify for FCS credit under section 3.1(11)(B) or 4.18A of the Act, and § 613.3300.

As noted above, we seek your input on what activities could determine functional similarity when evaluating whether an applicant qualifies as a similar entity. As such, we seek comment on the following questions:

1. What quantitative and qualitative criteria are being used or being considered for determining a “functionally similar” activity of an eligible borrower?

2. Could there be different factors based on market segments ( e.g., industry, commodity, regional markets, etc.) that would necessitate differentiating criteria used to determine a “functionally similar” activity? If so, what factors should be considered?

3. How far could an activity (such as processing and marketing, including packaging), be removed from agricultural production and harvesting, and basic processing of raw products and still qualify as a “functionally similar” activity of a similar entity?

4. What would be the most effective way to document how the activities of both an eligible borrower and a similar entity are determined to be functionally similar?

Congress established the similar entity authority to provide System institutions and non-System lenders with a tool to manage risk. 10 By lending to similar entities, System institutions can reduce geographic, industry, or individual borrower concentrations in their portfolios, and improve the results of their operations. The limits placed on System banks and associations in the Act reinforce the expectation that this authority be used prudently and thoughtfully. The similar entity authority should not diminish the System's primary mission as a lender to American farmers, ranchers, aquatic producers and harvesters, their cooperatives, and other eligible borrowers in rural America. Consistency between the similar entity's functionally similar activity and loan purposes that align with the FCS mission is a fundamental component in determining similar entity qualification, as well as significantly reducing the System's potential exposure to reputation risk. Consistency with the FCS mission and reduction of reputation risk exposure can be accomplished when the functionally similar activity and loan purpose demonstrate a clear direct benefit to American agriculture or certain activities in rural America and is appropriately documented. We would like to receive your input on the connection between similar entity lending authorities and the FCS mission.

When a similar entity's functionally similar operation(s) consist of producing, processing, or marketing a commodity or product, the expectation would be that an FCS bank or association evaluate how this activity advances the System's statutory mission to extend credit to American agriculture. This evaluation would include an assessment of a prospective similar entity's product mix, product ingredients, or inputs to ensure there is a primary benefit to American agriculture. A person or entity that primarily processes or markets product(s) that may not necessarily be considered agricultural products at face-value but contain agricultural ingredients ( e.g., beverages, further processed foods, and other consumer packaged goods, etc.) may still qualify as a similar entity depending on the ingredients or inputs of the product. For example, a similar entity's operation whose functionally similar activity is producing a snack food that contains ingredients that are both primarily agricultural products ( i.e., milk, wheat, soy) and primarily sourced from U.S. farmers  11 would likely be considered a direct benefit to American agriculture. However, if the total ingredients of the product ( e.g., snack foods, soft drinks, or energy drinks) are not primarily agricultural ingredients, or if those same agricultural ingredients were primarily sourced from non-U.S. farmers, there may be a question regarding the direct benefit to American agriculture.

Another area where the FCS's mission focuses on a direct benefit to rural America arises in lending to rural utilities under sections 3.7(f) and 3.8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Both sections of the Act require the utility to serve rural areas in America. Section 3.7(f) authorizes lending to entities for the purpose of installing, maintaining, expanding, improving, and operating water and waste disposal facilities in rural areas  12 with populations of 20,000 inhabitants or less. Section 3.8(b)(1)(A) authorizes lending to an electric or telecommunications utility that has received a loan, loan commitment, or loan guarantee from the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) or is eligible for such credit under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (REA). When a utility does not provide electric, telecommunications, water, or waste management services in rural areas, questions most likely will arise about whether a title III bank is fulfilling its statutory mission to extend credit in America's rural communities.

The FCS is committed to the success of American agriculture through its support of rural communities and agriculture with reliable and consistent credit and financial services. Section 1.1 of the Act acknowledges the need for credit in rural areas and states the objective of improving the income and well-being of American farmers and ranchers. As mentioned in subsection (A) above, the functionally similar activity directly ties the ineligible person or entity to an eligible borrower and the FCS mission. As such, we seek comment on the following questions:

1. What criteria would indicate that a similar entity's functionally similar operation(s) is most likely to benefit American agriculture or other activities in rural communities that are consistent with the lending authorities of FCS banks and associations?

a. What criteria and controls should we consider in a prospective rulemaking to ensure that similar entity lending is consistent with the scope of financing for loans to eligible borrowers?

b. Under what circumstances would an activity such as processing/marketing or packaging be allowed to deviate away from being related to American agricultural goods or products?

c. What consideration should be given to the ingredients of a similar entity's product(s) to ensure benefit to American agriculture?

i. What percentage of ingredients from the product(s) being produced should be composed of agricultural inputs?

ii. What percentage of sourced ingredients or inputs should come from U.S. farmers, ranchers, or producers of aquatic products?

iii. Under what circumstances could primarily sourcing ingredients from outside the U.S. benefit American agriculture?

d. To what extent could a water or waste facility that operates in areas with more than 20,000 inhabitants pursuant to the requirements of 3.7(f) qualify as a similar entity? What limitations should be required to ensure that such lending is compatible with the FCS mission to provide water and waste facilities in rural communities?

e. To what extent could an electric or telecommunications utility that is not eligible to borrow under section 3.8(b)(1)(A) of the Act qualify as a similar entity?

f. To what degree do utilities that are not directly eligible under title III need to provide public utility services to rural communities to be considered a similar entity?

2. What would be the most effective way to document how a similar entity's functionally similar activities/operations benefit either American agriculture or rural communities?

Sections 3.1(11)(B)(ii) and 4.18A of the Act provide the authority for System institutions to participate in loans to a similar entity. “Similar entity” is defined as an entity that is not eligible for a loan from a Farm Credit bank or association but is functionally similar to an eligible entity. We note that it is difficult to envision a situation in which a singular entity can be both an eligible borrower and a similar entity at the same time.

Many legal entities are in corporate families that have parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related entities. We are exploring whether more clarity is needed in the similar entity regulation to properly determine which entities in a multi-organizational structure qualify as similar entities. As such, we seek comment on the following questions:

1. Under what circumstances could a single entity simultaneously qualify as both an eligible borrower and similar entity (ineligible party)?

2. Under what circumstances could an entity in a corporate family (multi-organizational structure) qualify as a similar entity if another entity within the same corporate family is eligible to borrow, and vice versa? Please explain your reasoning and provide supporting information and suggestions.

3. What criteria or requirements ( e.g., corporate, operational, or financial interdependence) should our regulations place on the various entities in corporate families to ensure that the System only extends credit to qualified similar entities that meet the income, asset, and functionally similar requirements of the Act?

Section 3.1(11)(B)(iii) of the Act refers to multi-lender transactions which include, “other extensions of credit, or other technical and financial assistance” under the definition of “participate” or “participation” for similar entity credits.

We ask for your input on what may fall within the interpretation of “other extensions of credit” and “other technical and financial assistance,” including specifically whether and when bonds may be included as part of “other extensions of credit.” As such, we seek comment on the following questions:

1. What factors would your institutions consider as part of the credit evaluation process if participating in bonds through similar entity authorities?

a. What is the difference, if any, in the factors or credit evaluation process that should be considered if purchasing bonds on the secondary market versus participating in direct offerings?

b. How would you ensure compliance with the similar entity qualification and loan purpose requirements as outlined in § 613.3300(b)?

c. If purchased on the secondary market, how would you monitor compliance with the statutory lending limits in § 613.3300(c) and ensure the selling party is a non-FCS lender with authority to extend credit?

2. Are there any instruments, other than bonds, that would qualify as “other extensions of credit” that FCS institutions are utilizing, or are considering utilizing, within the similar entity lending authorities?

a. If so, what types of financial instruments are being used or considered?

b. What is the existing, or proposed structure of such instruments and what criteria and controls are being, or could be used to ensure safety and soundness?

3. What would qualify as “other technical and financial assistance” that FCS institutions are utilizing, or considering utilizing, within the similar entity lending authorities?

Finally, are there any other issues pertaining to similar entity lending authorities that you think should be addressed in the next phases of this rulemaking that we have not raised in this ANPRM?

SBA issued a proposed rule concerning the HUBZone program regulations under RIN 3245-AH68. 89 FR 68274 (Aug. 23, 2024). The proposed rule is intended to clarify and improve several regulatory provisions, including those governing HUBZone contract eligibility. The proposed rule would also make several changes to SBA's size and 8(a) Business Development (BD) program regulations. In particular, the rulemaking would consolidate and redesignate the separate recertification requirements for SBA's size, 8(a) BD, HUBZone, Woman-Owned Small Business, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business programs to a new section to reduce confusion and to ensure consistent application of the size and status recertification requirements. SBA anticipates the proposed rule will be published prior to the Tribal consultation meeting announced in this document.

In addition to the above referenced regulatory proposals, SBA is asking for input on how best to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 14112, Reforming Federal Funding and Support for Tribal Nations To Better Embrace Our Trust Responsibilities and Promote the Next Era of Tribal Self-Determination, which was signed by the President on December 6, 2023. This E.O. directs agencies to identify and execute policy reforms designed to promote accessible, equitable, and flexible administration of Federal funding and support programs for Tribal Nations to better live up to the Federal Government's trust responsibilities and help address the needs of all Tribal Nations. SBA has identified several potential opportunities for improvement, including the current requirements for personal guarantees and a waiver of sovereign immunity for 7(a) loans to tribally-owned business concerns, as well as the match funding requirement applicable to grants awarded by Native-serving entrepreneurship organizations, such as Small Business Development Centers and Community Development Financial Institutions. SBA is seeking comments on these and other potential reforms to reduce burdens and improve the accessibility of SBA's programs for Tribal stakeholders. Additionally, the Agency requests input on a change SBA has already made to address the business and economic development needs of Tribal Nations. Specifically, SBA's Assistant Administrator for Native American Affairs (ONAA)—who previously reported to the Associate Administrator for the Office of Entrepreneurial Development—now reports directly to the SBA Administrator. SBA would like to better understand whether Tribal Nations wish to continue with this current organization and reporting structure.

Lastly, SBA is requesting comments on other prospective policy changes addressing joint venture participation in SBA programs. Any such policy changes would be addressed in a separate proposed rulemaking action after considering comments and testimony from this tribal consultation meeting. Specifically, SBA is seeking input on the perception that mentor-protégé joint ventures are winning an inordinate number of orders issued under small business multiple award contracts and seeks suggestions on how to incentivize a more equitable marketplace for individual small businesses who compete against mentor-protégé joint ventures for multiple award, small business contracts. There is also a perception that small businesses often enter joint ventures to seek multiple award contract awards because procuring agency past performance and experience requirements make it difficult for many small businesses to qualify for the awards individually. SBA is considering whether to propose eliminating the exception to affiliation between an SBA-approved mentor and its protégé for multiple award contracts to address this concern. Such a change would continue to allow joint ventures to seek and be awarded single award small business contracts, but would make joint ventures ineligible for multiple award contracts. If that would occur, SBA would expect the past performance and experience required for award of future multiple award contracts to be adjusted to allow individual small businesses to more easily qualify for award.

Another potential approach would be to allow an exclusion from affiliation for a joint venture between a protégé firm and its mentor only for contracts or orders that do not exceed five years. As SBA has previously stated, SBA believes that a joint venture should not be an on-going entity, but something with limited scope and limited duration. Thus, SBA has limited the duration that a joint venture can submit offers for the award of contracts to two years from the date of its first contract award. SBA is questioning whether a joint venture performing a contract or order that exceeds five years is truly a limited duration entity.

Specific to qualified HUBZone protégé firms participating in the Mentor-Protégé Program, SBA is considering steps to clarify the applicability of the HUBZone price evaluation preference to HUBZone joint ventures formed under the Mentor-Protégé Program. Under the HUBZone price evaluation preference, where a procuring agency will award a contract on an unrestricted basis ( i.e., full and open competition), the agency must deem the price offered by a certified HUBZone small business concern (including a HUBZone joint venture that complies with the requirements of § 126.616) to be lower than the price offered by an apparent successful large business offeror if the price offered by the certified HUBZone small business concern is not more than 10% higher than the price offered by the large business. SBA is requesting comments and input on whether it is appropriate for a HUBZone mentor-protégé joint venture to benefit from the HUBZone price evaluation preference when the joint venture is already benefitting from its large business mentor's lower cost structures and pricing. SBA is considering whether to propose eliminating the HUBZone price evaluation preference's applicability to all joint ventures formed under the Mentor-Protégé Program or, alternatively, to offers submitting by a HUBZone joint venture where the mentor exceeds the applicable size standard corresponding to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code assigned to the contract.

The purpose of this Tribal consultation meeting is to conform to the requirements of E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249), and SBA's Tribal Consultation Policy ( https://www.sba.gov/document/support-sba-tribal-consultation-policy ); to provide interested parties with an opportunity to discuss their views on the issues; and for SBA to obtain the views of SBA's stakeholders on approaches to the HUBZone and 8(a) BD regulations. SBA considers Tribal consultation meetings a valuable component of its deliberations and believes that this Tribal consultation meeting will allow for constructive dialogue with the Tribal community, Tribal Leaders, Tribal Elders, elected members of Alaska Native Villages or their appointed representatives, and principals of tribally-owned and Alaska Native Corporation (ANC)-owned firms participating in the 8(a) BD program.

The format of this Tribal consultation meetings will consist of a panel of SBA representatives who will preside over the session. The oral and written testimony as well as any comments SBA receives will become part of the administrative record for SBA's consideration. Written testimony may be submitted in lieu of oral testimony. SBA will analyze the testimony, both oral and written, along with any written comments received. SBA officials may ask questions of a presenter to clarify or further explain the testimony. The purpose of the Tribal consultation is to assist SBA with gathering information to guide SBA's review process and to potentially develop new proposals. SBA requests that the comments pertain to SBA's planned rulemaking concerning the HUBZone and 8(a) BD programs, general issues as they pertain to the HUBZone and 8(a) BD regulations, opportunities for reform under E.O. 14112, or the unique concerns of the Tribal communities. Presenters are encouraged to provide a written copy of their testimony. SBA will accept written material that the presenter wishes to provide that further supplements his or her testimony. Electronic or digitized copies are encouraged.

The hybrid meeting in Washington, DC will begin at 2 p.m. and end at 5 p.m. (EDT). All registered speakers will have an opportunity to provide testimony. SBA may adjourn early if all those scheduled have delivered their testimony.

SBA respectfully requests that any elected or appointed representative of the Tribal communities or principal of a tribally-owned, ANC-owned, or Native Hawaiian Organization (NHO)-owned 8(a) firm that is interested in attending please pre-register in advance and indicate whether you would like to testify at the hearing. Pre-registration is not required for attendance at either the in-person or virtual portion of the consultation meeting and the Microsoft Teams invitation link for the virtual consultation meeting is a general link that may be shared with others. However, attendees of the virtual consultation meeting who would like to receive the link directly from SBA must pre-register. SBA requests that attendees register with SBA no later than: September 16, 2024. To register, please contact Chequita Carter of SBA's Office of Native American Affairs in writing at Chequita.Carter@sba.gov or by facsimile to (202) 481-2177. If you are interested in testifying, please include the following information relating to the person testifying: Name, Organization affiliation, Address, Telephone number, Email address and Fax number. SBA will attempt to accommodate all interested parties that wish to present testimony. Based on the number of registrants it may be necessary to impose time limits to ensure that everyone who wishes to testify has the opportunity to do so. SBA will confirm in writing the registration of presenters and attendees.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the Tribal consultation meeting, contact Chequita Carter at the telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would update the geographic coordinates and the airspace description of Eastern WV Regional Airport, Martinsburg, WV. An airspace evaluation determined that this update is necessary to support IFR operations in the area.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without editing, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6000 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. These updates will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

FAA Order JO 7400.11 lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class E Surface airspace within a 4.2-mile radius of Eastern West Virginia Regional/Shepherd Field Airport by updating the airport coordinates and formatting to comply with FAA Orders and databases. This action would also remove the city name from the second line of the header as per FAA Order JO 7400.2. The legal description was updated by referencing “Notice to Air Missions” (previously “Notice to Airmen”) and “Chart Supplement” (previously “Airport/Facility Directory”). This action would not change the airspace boundaries or operating requirements.

Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

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

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” prior to any final regulatory action by the FAA.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

In its role as coordinator of the Federal statistical system, OMB establishes and maintains the CBSA program. CBSAs are geographic areas containing a large population nucleus, or urban area, and adjacent communities that have a high degree of integration with that nucleus measured by commuting ties. There are two types of CBSAs, the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and the Micropolitan Statistical Area. The classifications provide a nationally consistent set of delineations for collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics for geographic areas. OMB maintains CBSAs solely for statistical purposes. Every decade, OMB reviews and updates the Standards for Delineating CBSAs (CBSA standards), which describe the data sources and methods OMB uses to determine which geographic areas are to be designated CBSAs, prior to their application to new decennial census data. OMB updated CBSA standards on July 16, 2021 (86 FR 37770), prior to applying them to 2020 Census data.

The Metropolitan Areas Protection and Standardization Act of 2021, or the MAPS Act, (31 U.S.C. 6102, et seq. ) prohibits agencies from automatically propagating OMB's standards for non-statistical use by any domestic assistance program unless the agency determines that the propagation: (1) supports the purpose of the program; and (2) is in the public interest. (31 U.S.C. 6309(a)(2)(A)) Propagation of the standards for non-statistical use by domestic assistance programs must be done through a notice and comment rulemaking. (31 U.S.C. 6309(a)(2)(B))

HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), Office of Housing—Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) use CBSAs to administer their programs listed in Table 1. The Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) also uses CBSA definitions to calculate Fair Market Rents, Area Median Family Income Estimates and Income Limits. This proposed rule describes, for each of its affected programs, how HUD uses CBSA definitions, how the use of new CBSA standards support the purposes of the programs, and that the adoption of the new CBSAs in the operations of these programs is in the public interest. HUD welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed rule.

HUD uses CBSAs to calculate Fair Market Rents (FMRs), HUD's Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) estimates, and Income Limits (ILs). FMRs, HAMFI, and ILs are addressed together because they incorporate MSA definitions in substantially identical ways and the presence of interacting calculations in the determination of these “program parameters.” That is, FMRs, HAMFI estimates, and ILs share the same geography in any given fiscal year. FMRs are an estimate of the amount of money that would cover gross rents (rent and utility expenses) on 40 percent of the rental housing units in an area. FMRs are used in several HUD programs, including determining the maximum amount a Housing Choice Voucher will cover. ILs, which are derived from HAMFIs (and in some cases, FMRs) set eligibility income levels for HUD programs as well as various other federal programs and maximum rent levels for housing supported by the Low-Income Housing Credit. From the inception of FMRs, HUD has generally considered MSAs to be good proxies for housing markets as they have been historically based on home-to-work commuting interactions as the principal means of identifying component geography to be combined. HUD has always also made exceptions for MSAs where boundaries extended beyond the actual housing market. Following the 2000 revisions that created CBSAs, HUD began making far more exceptions to the use of OMB-defined MSAs in FMRs to avoid large changes in FMR values due largely to geographic definition changes of MSAs. Since the promulgation of regulations mandating the use of “Small Area FMRs” estimated at the ZIP-code level in selected FMR areas, HUD has largely stopped incorporating new counties added to MSAs into FMR areas, instead maintaining separate “HUD Metro FMR Areas” (HMFAs).

Currently, for computations of FMR estimates HUD uses the MSAs to define which areas are in HUD Metro FMR Areas or defines the FMR area as coterminous with the MSA as appropriate for the housing market. FMRs are estimated separately for each county or county equivalent not in a MSA, including those in Micropolitan CBSAs. HUD also uses MSA-level data in the calculation of FMRs in HMFAs. See HUD's notice announcing fiscal year (FY) 2024 FMRs for details on the use of MSA-level data at: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/fmr2024/FMR_FY24_FinalNotice_2023.pdf (88 FR 60223). HAMFIs and ILs are estimated for the same areas as FMRs. Details on the relationship between ILs and FMRs is available in the FY 2024 Income Limits Methodology description at: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il//il24/IncomeLimitsMethodology-FY24.pdf.

HUD designates Difficult Development Areas (DDAs) and Qualified Census Tracts (QCTs) for purposes of the Low-Income Housing Credit (LIHTC) program. DDAs and QCTs derive from FMRs and ILs, but HUD also uses CBSA definitions in counting the metropolitan population and nonmetropolitan population for the DDAs, where designated populations are restricted to 20 percent of the respective totals, and the full population of metropolitan CBSAs for QCTs where the total population of designated tracts in a metropolitan area or nonmetropolitan part of a state cannot exceed 20 percent of total population of the respective areas. (26 U.S.C. 42(d)(5)(B))

PIH's Choice Neighborhoods Initiative program uses CBSA definitions as part of its grant application process. In awarding Planning grants and Implementation grants, MSAs are used to determine points earned for the “leverage” rating factor. Points are different for applications targeting a neighborhood in an MSA with a population greater than 500,000 versus 500,000 or less. CBSAs are also a factor used to determine whether an applicant qualifies for an exception to the hard unit one-for-one replacement requirement. If grantees want to locate replacement housing outside their target neighborhood, they cannot locate it in areas of minority concentration, which is defined using CBSA delineations.

CPD's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program uses OMB's definition of “Principal Cities” of Metropolitan CBSAs to determine which jurisdictions are eligible for metropolitan city status, as defined at 24 CFR 570.3. Metropolitan cities are participating units of general local government that are either principal cities, by OMB's definition, or any other city in a metropolitan area with a population of 50,000 or more. Other entitlement jurisdictions include “urban counties” which are defined and may be determined eligible by one of two ways as set forth in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (“HCDA”) ( see 42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(6)). Either the population of the urban county exceeds 200,000 after deducting the population contained in any metropolitan city (cities), or part(s) of a metropolitan city (cities), within the county, or the urban county meets the low- and moderate-income preponderance test, in that it has a total combined population of at least 100,000 (but fewer than 200,000) in its unincorporated areas and included units of general local government, and those areas (combined) include the majority of low- and moderate-income persons in the county. The CDBG entitlement formula uses as its denominator for five of the six variables the aggregated data for all metropolitan areas (see 42 U.S.C. 5306). CDBG-eligible low- and moderate-income areas and households are determined relative to HUD's ILs.

CPD's CDBG-Disaster Recovery funds provides relief to rebuild disaster-stricken areas and crucial seed money to start the long-term recovery process. Funding is awarded to “metropolitan areas” and “metropolitan cities”, among other recipients. Those geographic areas are defined in the HCDA as being established by OMB, referring to CBSAs. (42 U.S.C. 5302(a))

Additionally, CPD's Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program awards funding to States and “metropolitan statistical areas” to address the housing needs of low-income people living with HIV/AIDS and their families. The statute for the program defines “metropolitan statistical areas” as metropolitan statistical areas established by OMB and specifies that this includes the District of Columbia (HOPWA, section 853(5) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act, 42 U.S.C. 12902(5)).

Finally, CDP's HOME, Continuum of Care, and ESG programs offer grants to grantees in geographic areas based on the CDBG definitions that are themselves based on CBSAs. These programs do not otherwise use CBSAs in their grant allocation formulas. The HTF program uses formula factors whose definitions are based upon CBSA-level data.

The Office of Housing uses CBSAs to establish the Title II loan and mortgage limits. Loan limits are based on the county-level median home price of the highest price county within the area, with “area” defined as the “metropolitan statistical area as established by the Office of Management and Budget”, referring to OMB's CBSA program. (National Housing Act 203(b)(2) (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(2))

The new CBSA standards support FMRs, HAMFIs, and ILs. Because the new CBSAs become the standards for Federal statistical entities and private sector firms releasing data used in FMR calculations, adopting the new standards in these calculations serves to promote the accuracy of FMRs and makes their calculation more efficient. Whether a particular county is a non-metropolitan FMR area or one-county HMFA makes only a slight difference in the estimated value of the FMR but may make it more accurate. HMFA designation means HUD applies adjustments to the county-level data derived from the containing MSA rather than the non-metropolitan part of the state. Similar adjustments apply to ILs. Using new CBSA definitions improves the accuracy of HUD's affected calculations. The accuracy of these program parameters is in the public interest as it most appropriately will direct resources governed by these parameters to recipients in the most appropriate amounts.

The new CBSA standards support HUD's designation of DDAs and QTCs as well as PIH, CPD, and Housing's programs because they more accurately reflect the current housing markets, which have changed significantly since the 2010 census. Furthermore, adopting the new standards will not be disruptive to the programs as program participants are expecting HUD to regularly update the metropolitan area standards and definitions to reflect current market conditions as HUD has done historically.

For the reasons stated above, this proposed rule would affirmatively adopt new OMB CBSA Standards for purposes of estimating Fair Market Rents, Area Median Family Incomes, and Income Limits, and for other administrative purposes in PIH, CPD, and Housing programs. This includes any future revisions to the CBSA delineations under these standards.

HUD proposes to add a new subpart M to part 5 that will cross reference all affected programs and adopt the updated CBSA standards for such programs.

This proposed rule would adopt updated standards for CBSA delineations that HUD programs use for program administrative purposes. It is statistical and administrative in nature with the purpose of maintaining past administrative practices. This rule was not subject to OMB review. This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not an economically significant regulatory action.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and on the private sector. This proposed rule does not impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.

This proposed rule establishes discretionary review of loan limits, fair market rent schedules, income limits and exclusions with regard to eligibility for or calculation of HUD housing assistance or rental assistance, and similar rate and cost determinations and related external administrative or fiscal requirements or procedures which do not constitute a development decision that affects the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this proposed rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would adopt updated definitions of CBSA geographic areas that affected HUD programs use for various administrative purposes. The proposed adoption would be statistical and administrative in nature and consistent with longstanding HUD policy and practice. Therefore, the proposed action does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either: (i) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or (ii) preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR part 5 as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we refer to the EPA.

Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as “criteria pollutants”) and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be established. The primary NAAQS represent ambient air quality standards that the EPA has determined are requisite to protect the public health, while the secondary NAAQS represent ambient air quality standards that the EPA has determined are requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such an air pollutant in the ambient air.

Under the CAA, the EPA must establish a NAAQS for SO 2 , which is primarily released to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels by power plants and other industrial facilities. The EPA first established primary SO 2 standards in 1971 at 140 parts per billion (ppb) over a 24-hour averaging period and at 30 ppb over an annual averaging period. 1

On June 22, 2010, the EPA published in the Federal Register a strengthened, primary 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, establishing a new standard at a level of 75 ppb, based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations of SO 2 . 2 This revised SO 2 NAAQS provides increased protection of public health, and provided for revocation of the 1971 primary annual and 24-hour SO 2 standards for most areas of the country following area designations under the new NAAQS.

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required to designate all areas of the country as either “attainment,” “nonattainment,” or “unclassifiable,” pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(1). On August 5, 2013, the EPA finalized its first round of designations for the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS. 3 In this 2013 action, the EPA designated 29 areas in 16 states as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS. On July 12, 2016, the EPA finalized its second round of initial designations under the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS, designating an additional four areas as nonattainment, effective September 12, 2016. 4 Included in this second round of designations was the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area. This designation was based on the weight of evidence for the Area, including available air quality modeling and ambient air monitoring data from 2013-2015. Pursuant to section 192(a) of the CAA, the attainment date for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area was no later than five years after the effective date of initial designation, or September 12, 2021.

CAA section 191(a) directs states containing an area designated nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS to develop and submit a nonattainment area (NAA) state implementation plan (SIP) to the EPA within 18 months of the effective date of an area's designation as nonattainment. For SO 2, the NAA SIP (also referred to as an attainment plan) must meet the requirements of subparts l and 5 of part D, of title 1 of the CAA, and provide for attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable statutory attainment date, or no later than five years from the effective date of designation. The Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) submitted an attainment plan SIP for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area on January 31, 2020.

When a nonattainment area is attaining the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS based on the most recent available data, the EPA may issue a Clean Data Determination (CDD), suspending certain NAA planning requirements. The EPA issued a CDD for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area based on modeling and monitoring data for the period 2019-2021 via a final rule published on November 2, 2022, and at the same time, approved certain elements of the submitted attainment plan that are not waived by the EPA's CDD policy. 5 Notably, a CDD does not alter the Area's nonattainment designation. For the EPA to redesignate an area to attainment, the state must submit, and the EPA must approve a redesignation request for the Area that meets the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3). To date, Maryland has not requested redesignation of the Area to attainment.

Section 179(c)(1) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether a nonattainment area attained an applicable standard by the applicable attainment date based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date. The EPA is required to issue this determination within six months of the attainment date. Thus, the EPA had a mandatory duty to determine by March 12, 2022, under CAA section 179(c) if the Area reached attainment. With this action, the EPA proposes to determine, in accordance with CAA section 179(c), that the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area attained the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS by the September 12, 2021, attainment date.

A determination of whether an area's air quality meets applicable standards is generally based upon the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured data gathered at established state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in a nonattainment area and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. 6 Data from ambient air monitors operated by state and local agencies in compliance with the EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. All data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix T (for SO 2 ). In general, for SO 2 the EPA does not rely exclusively on monitoring data to determine whether the NAAQS is met unless it has been demonstrated that the monitors were appropriately sited to record expected maximum ambient concentrations of SO 2 in an area. As such, monitoring data can be supplemented with other relevant information, including dispersion modeling and emissions inventories, for determining attainment. 7

The attainment date for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area was September 12, 2021. For an area where monitoring data alone is used in the determination of attainment, the three-year design value for the calendar years preceding the attainment date is typically used ( e.g., the design value for January 2018 through December 2020 is the appropriate design value for an attainment date of September 12, 2021). In this case for the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County NAA however, the EPA is relying on both a combination of monitoring data and preexisting modeling from the November 2022 CDD to demonstrate attainment. The modeling for the CDD was for the period January 2019 through December 2021, which includes approximately 3.5 months of data occurring after the attainment date. The use of modeling information from 2021 provides additional credible evidence to demonstrate attainment by the September 12, 2021 attainment date because it is a more current representation of air quality in the area. Additionally, the EPA evaluated emissions from 2018 ( i.e., September 13, 2018 through December 31, 2018) as a crosscheck of the 3.5 months of data that was modeled after the attainment date ( i.e., September 13, 2021 through December 31, 2021) to confirm that the modeling impacts would not have resulted in violations had other time periods been modeled which would have aligned more closely with the monitored design value from 2018-2020.

The Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area is located in Maryland along the western banks of the Chesapeake Bay and encompasses portions of Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County within 26.8 kilometers of Herbert A. Wagner's Generating Station (Wagner) unit 3 stack, which is located at 39.17765 N latitude, 76.52752 W longitude. Any portion of Baltimore City that falls within this 26.8-kilometer radius is excluded from the nonattainment area. As noted, this area was designated as nonattainment by the EPA on July 12, 2016 for the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS. 8 A March 2, 2015 Consent Decree and enforceable order issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California mandated that the EPA issue designations within 16 months (July 2, 2016) for areas that contained a stationary source that had not been announced for retirement and, according to the EPA's Air Markets Database, emitted either more than 16,000 tons of SO 2 in 2012 or more than 2,600 tons of SO 2 and had an annual average emission rate of at least 0.45 pounds of SO 2 per one million British thermal units (lbs SO 2 /MMBTU) in 2012. 9 In 2012, Wagner emitted 7,514 tons of SO 2 and had an emissions rate of 1.105 lbs SO 2 /MMBTU, and had not been announced for retirement as of March 2, 2015. As a result, the Consent Decree applied to the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area.

Including Wagner, the Anne Arundel-Baltimore County Area contains three facilities that emit or have historically emitted SO 2 for the timeframe of interest. Brandon Shores power plant, C.P. Crane (Crane) power plant, and Wagner possess or have possessed coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). Brandon Shores and Wagner are located next to one another in northern Anne Arundel County near the City of Baltimore on a 456-acre site called the Fort Smallwood Complex. Crane is located approximately 22 kilometers northeast of the Fort Smallwood Complex in Baltimore County. 10

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document might apply to them:

• Restaurant kitchen cleaning service (NAICS code 561720);

• Milk production, dairy cattle (NAICS code 112120);

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311);

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532); and

• Food processing machinery and equipment merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 423830).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA is proposing several tolerance actions that the Agency previously determined were necessary or appropriate during registration review for the pesticide active ingredients identified in Unit III. The tolerance actions for each pesticide active ingredient are described in Unit III. and may include but are not limited to the following types of actions:

• Revising tolerance expressions;

• Modifying commodity definitions;

• Updating crop groupings;

• Removing expired tolerances;

• Revoking tolerances that are no longer needed; and

• Harmonizing tolerances with the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs).

Although it may not have been identified in the registration review of a particular pesticide, this rule may include proposals to reflect the Agency's 2019 adoption of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Rounding Class Practice. Where applicable, these adjustments are proposed for specific pesticides as reflected in the proposed regulatory text.

Pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), EPA is proposing the tolerance actions in this rulemaking that the Agency previously determined were necessary or appropriate during the registration review conducted under FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. FFDCA section 408(e) authorizes EPA to establish, modify, or revoke tolerances or exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative. Prior to issuing the final regulation, FFDCA section 408(e)(2) requires EPA to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for a 60-day public comment period, unless the Administrator for good cause finds that it would be in the public interest to have a shorter period and states the reasons in the rulemaking.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through email or https://www.regulations.gov. If you wish to include CBI in your comment, please follow the applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly mark the information that you claim to be CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

This proposed rule provides a 60-day public comment period that allows any person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for revocation. If EPA receives such a comment within the 60-day period, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under FFDCA section 408(f), if needed. The order would specify data needed and the timeframes for submission of the data and would require that within 90 days, some person or persons, notify EPA that they will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take appropriate action under FFDCA.

After considering comments that are received in response to this proposed rule, EPA will issue a final rule. At the time of the final rule, you may file an objection or request a hearing on the action taken in the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified in the final rule, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the filing deadline specified in the final rule, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings.

A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of a pesticide chemical legally allowed in or on food, which includes raw agricultural commodities and processed foods and feed for animals. Under the FFDCA, residues of a pesticide chemical that are not covered by a tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance are considered unsafe. See 21 U.S.C. 346a(a)(1). Foods containing unsafe residues are deemed adulterated and may not be distributed in interstate commerce. See 21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 342(a)(2)(B). Consequently, for a food-use pesticide ( i.e., a pesticide use that is likely to result in residues in or on food) to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances or exemptions under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA. Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances or exemptions in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States. For additional information about tolerances, go to https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-tolerances/about-pesticide-tolerances.

When establishing a tolerance for residues of a pesticide, EPA must determine whether Codex has established a MRL for that pesticide. See 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(4). Additionally, as part of the registration review of a pesticide (see Unit II.C.), EPA determines whether international MRLs exist for commodities and chemicals for which U.S. tolerances have been established. Where appropriate, EPA's intention is to harmonize U.S. tolerances with those international MRLs to facilitate trade. EPA's effort to harmonize with international MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of the individual Human Health Draft Risk Assessments that support the pesticide registration review.

Under FIFRA section 3(g), 7 U.S.C. 136a(g), EPA is required to periodically review all registered pesticides and determine if those pesticides continue to meet the standard for registration under FIFRA. See also 40 CFR 155.40(a). The registration review program is intended to make sure that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides can continue to be used without causing unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment. As part of the registration review of a pesticide, EPA also evaluates whether existing tolerances are safe, whether any changes to existing tolerances are necessary or appropriate, and whether any new tolerances are necessary to cover residues from registered pesticides. In addition, any tolerance changes identified as necessary or appropriate during registration review of a pesticide are summarized in the registration review decision documents for each pesticide active ingredient or registration review case ( e.g., in the Proposed Interim Decision (PID), Proposed Final Decision (PFD), Interim Decision (ID) and Final Decision (FD)). These documents can be found in the public docket that has been opened for each pesticide, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, using the docket ID number listed in Unit III. for each pesticide active ingredient included in this proposed action. Additional information about pesticide registration review is available at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation .

EPA has assessed the individual risks from exposure to the pesticide active ingredients identified and discussed in Unit III., taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children, and has included a safety finding under FFDCA section 408(b) for the proposed tolerance actions. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure for each individual chemical is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of the pesticide active ingredients identified and discussed in Unit III. Thus, EPA has determined that the proposed tolerances for residues of the pesticide active ingredients identified and discussed in Unit III. are safe.

Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expressions. Chemical specific safety findings are discussed in detail in the human health risk assessments conducted to support the registration review of each specific pesticide active ingredient or registration review case. The human health risk assessments can be found in the public docket that has been opened for each pesticide, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov using the docket ID number listed in Unit III.

EPA's Policy on Children's Health (October 5, 2021) requires EPA to protect children from environmental exposures by consistently and explicitly considering early life exposures (from conception, infancy, early childhood and through adolescence until 21 years of age) and lifelong health in all human health decisions through identifying and integrating children's health data and information when conducting risk assessments. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/2021-policy-on-childrens-health.pdf.

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C)). Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of these proposed tolerance actions. The Agency's consideration is documented in the pesticide specific registration review decision documents. See the pesticide specific discussions in Unit III. and the chemical specific registration review documents that are available in the pesticide specific docket as identified in Unit III.

EPA is proposing to take the specific tolerance actions identified in this unit and as described in the March 2022 Combined PWP/PID. Capric (decanoic) acid, caprylic (octanoic) acid, and pelargonic (nonanoic) acid are registered for antimicrobial use as a sanitizer on food processing and dairy equipment. As a result of those uses, residues of these chemicals may be found in food that come into contact with treated surfaces; thus, that use is categorized as an “indirect food use” that requires a tolerance or exemption. Absent information supporting a conclusion that no residues would be available for transfer to food, a tolerance or tolerance exemption is required for capric (decanoic) acid, caprylic (octanoic) acid, and pelargonic (nonanoic) acid.

However, the Agency is now proposing to amend these established tolerance exemptions because they include outdated application rate limits. Because the latest evaluations of these pesticides determined that there are no dietary risks of concern, the application rate limits on the tolerance exemptions are no longer necessary. Additionally, the Agency is proposing to remove several duplicative tolerance exemptions that were not initially identified in the combined PWP/PID but are justified by the same science rationale as described in the combined PWP/PID.

As noted in the March 2022 PWP/PID, there are exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940 (b) and (c) for residues of capric (decanoic) acid when applied to dairy-processing equipment and food processing equipment and utensils, with the limitation that the end-use concentration of capric (decanoic) acid does not exceed 90 ppm (section b), and 234 ppm (section c). After the issuance of the PWP/PID, it was found that an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for capric (decanoic acid) exists in section (a) as well with the limitation that the end-use concentration of caprylic (octanoic) acid is not to exceed 100 ppm. EPA, on its own initiative is therefore proposing to remove the redundant exemptions and limits for capric (decanoic) acid under 40 CFR 180.940 (b) and (c) entirely, and to remove the 100 ppm limit for capric (decanoic) acid from 180.940(a). As discussed in Unit II.D., EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to capric (decanoic acid) residues. The proposed tolerance changes are considered safe and adequate enforcement methodology is available.

As noted in the March 2022 PWP/PID, there are exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940 (b), and (c) for residues of caprylic (octanoic) acid when applied to dairy-processing equipment and food processing equipment and utensils, with the limitation that the end-use concentration of caprylic (octanoic) acid does not exceed 176 ppm (section b), and 234 ppm (section c). After the issuance of the PWP/PID, it was found that two exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for caprylic (octanoic acid) exist in section (a) as well with limitations that the end-use concentration of caprylic (octanoic) acid is not to exceed 52 ppm and 100 ppm. EPA, on its own initiative is therefore proposing to remove the redundant exemptions and limits for caprylic (octanoic) acid from 40 CFR 180.940 (b) and (c) entirely, and to remove the 100 ppm limits for caprylic (octanoic) acid from 180.940(a). As discussed in Unit II.D., EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to caprylic (octanoic) acid residues. The proposed tolerance changes are considered safe and adequate enforcement methodology is available.

As noted in the March 2022 PWP/PID, there are exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940(a), (b), and (c) for residues of pelargonic (nonanoic) acid when applied to dairy-processing equipment and food processing equipment and utensils, with the limitation that the end-use concentration of pelargonic (nonanoic) acid does not exceed 100 ppm (section a) and 90 ppm (sections b and c). EPA, on its own initiative is therefore proposing to remove the redundant exemptions and limits for pelargonic (nonanoic) acid from 40 CFR 180.940 (b) and (c) entirely, and to remove the 100 ppm limit for pelargonic (nonanoic) acid from 180.940(a). As discussed in Unit II.D., EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to pelargonic (nonanoic) acid residues. The proposed tolerance changes are considered safe and adequate enforcement methodology is available.

Also outlined in the March 2022 PWP/PID, there is an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of pelargonic (nonanoic) acid in or on all raw agricultural commodities and in processed commodities, when such residues result from the use of pelargonic (nonanoic) acid as an antimicrobial treatment in solutions containing a diluted end-use concentration of pelargonic (nonanoic) acid on food contact surfaces such as equipment, pipelines, tanks, vats, fillers, evaporators, pasteurizers and aseptic equipment in restaurants, food service operations, dairies, breweries, wineries, beverage and food processing plants, with a limitation of 170 ppm. EPA, on its own initiative, is therefore proposing to remove the limit of 170 ppm under 40 CFR 180.1159(c) for pelargonic (nonanoic) acid. As discussed in Unit II.D., EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to pelargonic (nonanoic) acid residues. The proposed tolerance changes are considered safe and adequate enforcement methodology is available.

As outlined in the March 2022 PWP/PID, there is an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of capric (decanoic) acid in or on all raw agricultural commodities and in processed commodities, when such residues result from the use of capric (decanoic) acid as an antimicrobial treatment in solutions containing a diluted end-use concentration of capric (decanoic) acid on food contact surfaces such as equipment, pipelines, tanks, vats, fillers, evaporators, pasteurizers, and aseptic equipment in restaurants, food service operations, dairies, breweries, wineries, beverage and food processing plants, with the limitation of 170 ppm. EPA, on its own initiative, is therefore proposing to remove the limit of 170 ppm under 40 CFR 180.1225 for capric (decanoic) acid. As discussed in Unit II.D., EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to capric (decanoic) acid residues. The proposed tolerance changes are considered safe and adequate enforcement methodology is available.

EPA is proposing that these tolerance actions would be effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register . However, for actions in the final rule that lower or revoke existing tolerances, EPA is proposing an expiration date for the existing tolerance of six months after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register , to allow a reasonable interval for producers in exporting members of the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures Agreement to adapt to the requirements.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/regulations/and-executive-orders.

This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), because it proposes to establish or modify a pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408. This exemption also applies to tolerance revocations for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist. As such, this exemption applies to the tolerance revocations in this proposed rule because the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that warrant reconsideration of this exemption for those proposed tolerance revocations.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because it does not contain any information collection activities.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this determination, EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this action is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the Agency is certifying that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the action has no net burden on small entities subject to this rulemaking. This determination takes into account an EPA analysis for tolerance establishments and modifications that published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) (FRL-1809-5), and for tolerance revocations on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1). Additionally, in a 2001 memorandum, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. See Memorandum from Denise Keehner, Division Director, Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, entitled “RFA/SBREFA Certification for Import Tolerance Revocation” and dated May 25, 2001, which is available in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0322 at https://www.regulations.gov.

For the pesticides named in this rulemaking, EPA concludes that there is no reasonable expectation that residues of the pesticides for tolerances listed in this rulemaking for revocation will be found on the commodities discussed in this rulemaking, and the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposed rule that would change EPA's previous analyses.

Any comments about the Agency's determination for this rulemaking should be submitted to EPA along with comments on the proposed rule and will be addressed in the final rule.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will not have substantial direct effects 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.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 ( See Unit V.A.), and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. However, EPA's 2021 Policy on Children's Health applies to this action as discussed in Unit II.D. generally, and in Unit III. in the context of the individual chemicals addressed in this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355) (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns as described in Executive Orders 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), and 14096 (88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023). Furthermore, EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. As discussed in more detail in the pesticide specific risk assessments conducted as part of the registration review for each pesticide identified in Unit III., EPA has considered the safety risks for the pesticides subject to this rulemaking and in the context of the tolerance actions set out in this rulemaking. See also Unit I.D.3.

Therefore, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

The additions read as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 17-258, FCC 24-86, adopted on August 5, 2024, and released on August 16, 2024. The full text of this document is available for public inspection online at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-looks-modernize-35-ghz-citizens-broadband-radio-service-rules.

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a brief plain language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.

• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

• Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

• Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Ex Parte Status: The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules. We find that all ex parte presentations made by NTIA or Department of Defense representatives relating to the development and implementation of spectrum access in the 3.5 GHz band are exempt under our exemption for presentations by federal agencies sharing jurisdiction with the Commission.

WTB and OET staff—in close collaboration with NTIA and DoD—communicate with SAS administrators and ESC operators in providing Commission staff oversight of the administration of sharing the 3.5 GHz band. We determine the ongoing communications are not subject to the permit-but-disclose requirements of the pending proceeding because the communications are not directed to the merits or outcome of the proceeding ( i.e., not presentations) and instead relate to the procedural matters of WTB and OET oversight of the SASs and ESCs as delegated by the Commission. The Commission will not seek to rely on the SAS/ESC oversight conversations in the pending proceeding. If a SAS administrator or ESC operator wishes to provide feedback that is directed to the merits of this proceeding, it may do so using the comment filing procedures detailed in this section.

1. With this NPRM, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) continues to develop the Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations in the 3.55-3.7 GHz band (3.5 GHz band). This NPRM provides an overview of the federal protection regime implemented by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Department of Defense (DoD), and Commission staff and solicits input on proposals to update the technical and service rules. Specifically, with regard to federal protection in the band, this NPRM proposes to modify the part 96 rules to reflect the mechanisms currently used to protect federal users in the 3.5 GHz band and seeks comment on whether we should consider rule changes to align 3.5 GHz protection methodologies with those in adjacent bands, revisit the FCC's Environmental Sensing Capability (ESC) approval procedures, and facilitate the continued introduction of Citizens Broadband Radio Service in areas outside of the contiguous United States (CONUS). The NPRM specifically seeks comment on whether changes to the part 96 technical and service rules are necessary to clarify information disclosure requirements, align out-of-band emissions limits with those in adjacent bands, permit higher power levels, relax Spectrum Access System (SAS) connectivity requirements, impose Time Division Duplex (TDD) coordination procedures, or update protection measures for certain Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether to address issues surrounding professional installation, accommodate additional deployment of private networks and low power indoor facilities, or adopt rules to facilitate General Authorized Access (GAA) user coexistence. The Declaratory Ruling would clarify that NTIA and DoD are not considered “the general public” for purposes of the Commission's rule governing disclosure of Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device registration information.

2. In this NPRM, the Commission continues efforts to provide regulatory certainty and promote innovation, investment, and continued growth of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Consistent with these objectives, the Commission proposes to modify the part 96 service rules to codify refinements that WTB and OET, in close coordination with NTIA and DoD staff, have implemented pursuant to delegated authority. We also explore the need for changes to the dynamic protection area (DPA)-based framework that could improve the ways in which DPA-based protections operate. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should expand the use of a coordination portal to protect federal operations, update our rules to align protection measures with those in adjacent bands, consider modifying our ESC procedures to address potential effects on competition and the marketplace, or consider permitting Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations in offshore areas. We also note that any proposed rule changes that may impact incumbent federal operations—including the protection methodologies used to prevent harmful interference to incumbent federal users—will need to be coordinated with NTIA and DoD.

3. In 2018, the FCC's WTB and OET granted a conditional waiver of certain rules governing the protection of federal operations in the 3.5 GHz band to facilitate more rapid access to the band by a wider variety of devices without compromising federal incumbent operations. The 2018 DPA Waiver Order requires DPA-enabled SASs to protect an activated DPA from aggregate interference. DPAs are activated when DoD radar systems are using the band (as detected by ESC sensors or as scheduled through and approved by a scheduling portal), signaling that federal incumbents must be protected from other users in the band. While a DPA is “active,” the DPA-enabled SAS must manage Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) frequency and power assignments to ensure that the entire DPA is protected from aggregate interference within the active frequency range. This dynamic approach eliminates the need for DPA-enabled SASs to enforce Exclusion Zones in coastal regions and other geographic areas protected by DPAs. Following the 2018 DPA Waiver Order, NTIA and DoD have worked closely with WTB and OET to further refine the federal coordination process in the 3.5 GHz band.

4. Coastal DPAs. In a 2018 letter, NTIA recommended replacing static coastal Exclusion Zones with “coastal DPAs” to help make the 3.5 GHz band more accessible to commercial users in coastal regions. NTIA indicated that “coastal DPAs” would be located in specific geographic areas along the East, Gulf, West, Alaskan, Hawaiian, and Puerto Rican coasts to protect shipborne radar systems and may be used to protect terrestrial facilities, as well. DPA-enabled SASs have used Coastal DPAs to protect federal operations since the initiation of commercial operations in the 3.5 GHz band. We now propose to define coastal DPAs in the Commission's rules and to require all current and future SASs to utilize them to protect federal operations. We seek comment on this proposal.

5. Portal-Activated DPAs. To facilitate increased participation and maximize non-federal access to 3.5 GHz spectrum near federal facilities designated for testing and training by DoD and the military services, NTIA, DoD, and WTB/OET agreed to utilize a dedicated scheduling portal to protect federal operations. The scheduling portal allows federal operators to reserve their use of specific frequency ranges in the band for developmental and operational testing and various training activities. The scheduling portal is also used to protect federal operations in some coastal areas. Employing “portal-activated” DPAs (P-DPAs) to protect test and training ranges, SAS administrators are required to communicate with the portal on a regular basis to manage federal and non-federal shared use of the band. We propose to require SASs to use an approved scheduling portal to protect P-DPAs and add a definition of P-DPAs to the part 96 rules. We seek comment on this proposal.

6. Always Activated DPAs. Another example of a more flexible approach is the use of “always activated” DPAs instead of static Exclusion Zones to protect eleven ground-based radar system sites operating below 3.5 GHz from experiencing harmful interference from non-federal operations in the 3.55-3.65 GHz band. To avoid delaying commercial buildout, NTIA and WTB/OET determined that “always activated” DPA protection, based on limiting the maximum aggregate received power level from the CBSDs at the location of the radar antenna, offered the best means to provide buildout flexibility while fully protecting critical federal radar systems. We propose to require SASs to protect Always Activated DPAs and to add a definition of Always Activated DPAs to the part 96 rules. We seek comment on this proposal.

7. Given the successful implementation of DPA-based protections and the resulting growth in commercial use of the 3.5 GHz band, we propose to add detailed definitions for the different types of DPAs, as well as DPA Neighborhoods, and to make enforcement of DPA-based protections mandatory for all current and future SASs. We also propose to update the part 96 rules to incorporate the DPA framework adopted in the 2018 DPA Waiver Order. In addition, we seek comment on changes to the definition of “Exclusion Zone” to account for the possibility of coordination with federal users in the remaining areas protected by such zones. We also seek comment on whether there are changes or improvements we should make to the DPA-based framework to improve the ways in which DPA-based protections operate. We welcome suggestions regarding how we can modify the DPA regime to encourage Citizens Broadband Radio Service network buildout while maintaining protections for federal incumbents.

8. As described above, designated federal test and training facilities, as well as some coastal areas, including the territory of American Samoa, are protected by P-DPAs. If a SAS administrator intends to operate as a DPA-enabled SAS—as all currently certified SASs have done—it must use an approved scheduling portal to protect designated P-DPAs.

9. DoD recently developed an automated system called the Telecommunications Advanced Research and Dynamic Spectrum Sharing System (TARDyS3) to replace the manual scheduling portal used to activate the P-DPAs. The TARDyS3 is a DoD calendar-based system that supports expeditious communications regarding spectrum use at test and training ranges in the 3.5 GHz band. Scheduling via TARDyS3 is designed to enable DoD users to reserve their spectrum use and communicate the use of a given Citizens Broadband Radio Service channel at a given time near the designated P-DPA.

10. Under current rules in § 96.63(n)(1), each SAS must “[o]perate[ ] without any connectivity to any military or other sensitive federal database or system, except as otherwise required by this part.” Accordingly, because the TARDyS3 portal is managed by DoD and includes information on DoD operations, WTB and OET waived § 96.63(n)(1) of the Commission's rules to permit SAS administrators to utilize the TARDyS3 portal. WTB and OET found that the waiver furthers the public interest by improving the security, reliability, and resiliency of the scheduling portal utilized by SAS administrators to protect certain designated federal facilities in the 3.5 GHz band and by permitting the use of the TARDyS3 portal to improve federal coordination in the band. Correspondingly, WTB and OET instructed the SAS administrators to begin using the TARDyS3 portal by issuing a public notice.

11. We propose to modify the part 96 rules to require that SAS administrators use a Commission-authorized scheduling portal—currently, the TARDyS3 system—to protect P-DPAs. We believe that codifying this requirement will further the public interest by formalizing the use of a secure, reliable, and resilient scheduling portal that will be utilized by SAS administrators to improve federal coordination and ensure the protection of critical federal operations against harmful interference. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on possibly expanding future use of the portal system to protect federal operations in other areas, particularly in areas outside of the CONUS with difficult terrain or unique protection needs ( e.g., Alaska and Hawaii). Do commenters see any need to distinguish any such areas from those already included in the TARDyS3 system? To that end, we seek comment on whether we should consider other applications for portal-based solutions to protect federal users and securely manage harmful interference between non-federal and federal entities.

12. Following the adoption of 3.5 GHz band rules, Commission adopted rules for a new 3.45 GHz Service operating between 3.45-3.55 GHz that employed a federal/non-federal sharing regime that differs in some ways from the Citizens Broadband Radio Service spectrum sharing model. While operators in both the 3.45 GHz and 3.5 GHz bands are charged with protecting many but not all of the same federal radar systems (some of which operate across both bands), in some cases they are required to apply different protection methodologies in each band. In the 3.45 GHz Service, the Commission adopted a geographic protection model that utilizes geographic areas classified as Cooperative Planning Areas (CPAs) and Periodic Use Areas (PUAs) to protect certain federal operations against harmful interference. To afford licensees maximum flexibility in deploying networks and offering services while still protecting remaining federal operations, the Commission adopted a coordination regime. New flexible-use 3.45 GHz Service licensees are required to coordinate with DoD incumbents operating within CPAs and PUAs to facilitate shared use of the band using a coordination portal, and 3.45 GHz Service licensees were encouraged to enter into mutually acceptable operator-to-operator agreements to permit more extensive flexible use within CPAs and PUAs by agreeing to a technical approach that mitigates the interference risk to federal operations.

13. We seek comment on whether there are opportunities to revise the rules governing the 3.5 GHz band to align the protection of specific inland and port-based federal systems and facilities given the spectrum sharing framework adopted in the adjacent 3.45 GHz band. Specifically, we seek comment on whether 3.5 GHz band protection methodologies could be aligned to correspond to 3.45 GHz band protections—for the same systems and facilities—to increase commercial access to the band while maintaining necessary protection for federal incumbent users. For example, some 3.45 GHz facilities protected by CPAs or PUAs are also protected from out of band emissions from the Citizens Broadband Radio Service by Always On DPAs. In some instances, the 3.5 GHz band protections may restrict non-federal operations more than the corresponding CPA or PUA. In addition, both services use a portal-based approach to protect certain federal incumbents, some of which span the two bands. Are there opportunities to create efficiencies by modifying the protection mechanisms in the 3.5 GHz band to better align with those in the 3.45 GHz band in these, or other instances? We note that any potential changes to the protection of federal operations will need to be coordinated with NTIA and DoD. We encourage commenters to consider approaches wherein we may be able to increase commercial spectrum opportunities and facilitate more efficient use of valuable spectrum resources.

14. In 2018, WTB and OET established procedures for ESC operators to register their ESC sensors prior to beginning operations in a particular DPA. These ESC sensor application requirements include, at a minimum, that the ESC operator demonstrate that the coverage provided by the network of ESC sensors will comply with NTIA's published guidance and that the ESC operator must submit a detailed coverage map of the sensor network. Accordingly, WTB and OET evaluate the deployment of ESC sensors for DPA coverage. ESC sensors are not, however, evaluated for any competitive or marketplace impacts, including any potential negative effects on Citizens Broadband Radio Service users that are operating, or seeking to initiate operations, near an ESC sensor site. In addition, ESC operators are not currently required to make their services available to unaffiliated SAS administrators.

15. The Commission welcomes feedback on whether we should modify aspects of the ESC sensor approval requirements. Specifically, without altering existing DPA coverage requirements for ESC certification, should we consider modifying any of the ESC sensor approval procedures given the state of competition in the SAS/ESC marketplace? Should we direct WTB and OET to consider the competitive and deployment impacts of new ESC sensors during the ESC sensor approval process ( e.g., assessment of the population within the geographic area that would be potentially affected by a sensor deployment)? If so, how should those impacts be quantified and considered? In addition, to facilitate and maintain a competitive marketplace, should ESC operators be required to make their services available to any certified SAS administrator? We encourage commenters to provide detailed feedback, including technical and cost-benefit analyses and use cases, if applicable, to support their positions.

16. While the Commission has issued PALs, certified SAS administrators, and authorized GAA use in Alaska, Hawaii, and several U.S territories outside of CONUS (OCONUS), in some OCONUS areas, operators have experienced unique delays and challenges specific to their geography or region. To date, Commission staff has worked in close coordination with NTIA and DoD to enable service by employing a portal based protection methodology for American Samoa, temporary portal-based solution for Hawaii, and ESC sensor deployment and coverage plans in Guam, Puerto Rico, and part of Alaska. Consistent with these efforts, we seek comment on whether there are other OCONUS areas that may benefit from an alternate approach to federal protection, on a temporary or permanent basis. We also seek comment generally on the feasibility of implementing the Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensing framework in the 3.55-3.65 GHz band segment in OCONUS areas given the difficulty of installing ESC sensors in remote or hard-to-reach areas. How can we overcome the logistical and economic barriers to ESC development and deployment in OCONUS territories? Should we consider other means of ensuring federal protection in OCONUS areas? If so, what are the hurdles to achieving the desired outcome? Are there ways in which we can incentivize or expedite ESC deployment in OCONUS areas? Are there different approaches that might work better in different OCONUS areas? Should we modify our part 96 rules to effectuate these potential solutions and, if so, what specific changes should we make? Commenters should support their alternative proposals with corresponding cost/benefit analyses, including any underlying data and assumptions associated with such proposals.

17. We also seek comment on whether Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations should be permitted in offshore areas ( e.g., the Gulf of Mexico) in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band segment. We note that the Commission did not directly address potential offshore operations, including those in the Gulf of Mexico, in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band in its earlier orders. However, the 3.65-3.7 GHz band was used extensively by part 90 licensees, including some offshore deployments on oil rigs and other facilities, before the Citizens Broadband Radio Service transition was complete. What are the costs and benefits associated with permitting offshore Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band? Could offshore operations in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band have adverse impacts on ESC sensors along the coastline and, if so, how could such interference be mitigated? How would CBSDs located offshore maintain connectivity with a SAS as required by the Commission's rules? Commenters should provide details regarding the potential operational impacts, costs, benefits, and resource considerations for new offshore service entrants and discuss any potential impact such operations may have on incumbent users in the area.

18. Consistent with the Commission's rules, Priority Access Licensees and GAA users are required to register all CBSDs with, and be authorized by, a SAS prior to initial service transmission. In addition to the CBSD registration and authorization requirements, Commission rules require CBSDs to provide received signal strength and other measured parameters to the SAS administrators upon request. Commission rules also restrict the CBSD information that SASs can disclose to the public. We welcome feedback on whether to make changes to the Commission's rules governing the breadth and scope of CBSD information provided to SASs and CBSD information availability.

19. CBSD Measured Interference Metric Information. The Commission requires CBSDs to provide measured interference metric information when a SAS administrator requests the data. We seek comment on how this works in practice. In the 2015 3.5 GHz First Report and Order, the Commission indicated that any such requirements may be set by a multistakeholder group. Are these issues effectively addressed in the standards set within WInnForum? Would different information or a broader set of information about the Citizens Broadband Radio Service radiofrequency environment support improvements in the 3.5 GHz band? In particular, we would be interested to understand if additional real world data about Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations would enable the SAS administrators to more effectively manage spectrum access within the band or if additional data could be beneficial to Priority Access Licensees, GAA users, the FCC, or NTIA and DoD. Do currently certified CBSDs have the capability to measure additional data about the PAL and GAA radiofrequency environment? In particular, the Commission is interested in whether CBSDs' measurement of additional data would require a hardware change or software upgrade and the costs of adding any such a capability to already certified CBSDs.

20. CBSD Information Availability. Initially, the SAS administrators were required to make CBSD registration information available to the general public and to “obfuscate the identities of the licensees providing the information for any public disclosures” to protect against public disclosure of confidential business information that could compromise personal privacy or affect competitive interests. The Commission subsequently modified the CBSD information disclosure requirement to provide that SAS administrators may not disclose “specific CBSD registration information to the general public except where such disclosure is authorized by the registrant” and SAS administrators are only required to “make available to the general public aggregated spectrum usage data for any geographic area.” When the Commission revised the public disclosure requirement, it noted that the success of the 3.5 GHz band's shared spectrum model requires providing prospective users with enough information to accurately assess the overall spectrum environment in an area to make investment and deployment decisions. Given the rapid and ongoing growth of commercial deployments in the band—along with stakeholder interest in increased transparency—current and future Citizens Broadband Radio Service users might benefit from more granular information on CBSD deployments to effectively plan their networks. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether the existing information disclosure rules provide sufficient data for current and future Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to plan their network deployments and make informed decisions regarding investments in the band.

21. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should consider modifying our disclosure rules to reinstate the original information disclosure requirements or whether we should implement an alternative approach. Commenters are encouraged to indicate whether current permissible disclosure of aggregated spectrum usage data for a geographic area, including total available spectrum and the maximum available contiguous spectrum, provides sufficient information to determine whether a market they have singled out for consideration warrants CBSD deployment and capital investment. Commenters seeking changes to the disclosure rules should explain why the use of aggregate heat maps, showing the total amount of occupied and available spectrum in a given area of interest, has been insufficient to meet their needs.

22. Commenters seeking alternative disclosure rules, including a reversion to the original information disclosure requirements, should explain how their approach would balance existing operator interest in protecting sensitive network information with the legitimate information needs of prospective service providers and the general public. Specifically, proponents of alternative disclosure approaches should outline how their proposals would safeguard sensitive business or network operations data while yielding enough spectrum use data to assist parties interested in obtaining access to the band on a GAA basis or engaging with Priority Access Licensees for secondary market transactions.

23. In addition, as described in the Declaratory Ruling that accompanies this NPRM, we clarify that NTIA and DoD are not considered “the general public” with regard to the CBSD information disclosure rule. To supplement the Declaratory Ruling and further clarify this point in part 96, we propose to modify § 96.55 of the Commission's rules to require SAS administrators to provide CBSD registration data to NTIA and DoD upon request. We seek comment on this proposal.

24. We seek comment on whether we should align the Citizens Broadband Radio Service base station OOBE limits with OOBE limits adopted in the 3.7 GHz Service, which is adjacent to the upper edge of the 3.5 GHz band. In the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the following OOBE limits apply: (1) −13 dBm/MHz from 0 to 10 megahertz from the SAS assigned channel edge; (2) −25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 megahertz from the SAS assigned channel edge down to 3.53 GHz and up to 3.72 GHz; and (3) −40 dBm/MHz below 3.53 GHz and above 3.72 GHz. In the adjacent 3.7 GHz Band Service, the Commission subsequently adopted a less restrictive OOBE limit for base station and mobile operations of −13 dBm/MHz that is consistent with limits for many other mobile wireless services. Declining to adopt more stringent emission limits both within and outside the 3.7 GHz band, the Commission stated that doing so would hinder the full potential of 5G deployment in the band. As for the mobile OOBE limit, the Commission indicated that the effect on Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations below the 3.7 GHz band edge would be minimal and that the limit would permit mobile devices to operate across the variety of spectrum bands currently available for mobile broadband services.

25. The Commission seeks comment as to whether we should relax the Citizens Broadband Radio Service OOBE limits at the upper edge of the 3.5 GHz band and, if so, what new OOBE limit would be appropriate. Notably, recent requests for waivers of the OOBE limits in the 3 GHz services underscore the challenge that the divergent OOBE cutoffs in the 3 GHz bands potentially pose to equipment manufacturers seeking to introduce multi-band radio equipment that can operate across these adjacent bands. We seek comment on whether we should consider relaxing the OOBE limits for operations within the Citizens Broadband Radio Service band. Would relaxing the 3.5 GHz band OOBE limits both within and outside the band to comport with the adjacent 3.7 GHz Service OOBE limits ( i.e., replacing the current OOBE limits with a −13 dBm/MHz OOBE limit from 3.55−3.7 GHz) help to facilitate broader deployment of multi-band 5G radio equipment? Alternatively, would some other changes to the OOBE limits ( e.g., removing the −40 dBm/MHz limit above 3720 MHz while leaving the other limits unchanged) be more effective? Would such changes increase the possibility of harmful interference to adjacent band operations—or operations in nearby channels in the 3.5 GHz band—and, if so, how could such interference be mitigated? Would such changes privilege one type of user or network deployment over another? Commenters are encouraged to provide detailed cost-benefit and technical analyses to support their arguments.

26. In adopting the rules governing CBSD and End User Device (UE) power levels in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the Commission strove to balance the public interest objectives of providing greater flexibility to operators against the need to ensure efficient use of the spectrum to create a flexible regime suitable for a wide variety of use cases.

27. We seek comment on whether to add one or more classes of higher power CBSDs to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. If so, how should these classes be defined and what should the maximum permissible power levels be for each new class of CBSDs? We also seek comment on the potential effects that introducing higher power devices might have on the sharing environment both in and adjacent to the 3.5 GHz band. Specifically, would higher power levels affect spectrum availability near incumbent operations—including federal operations and FSS earth stations—and, if so, would some types of operations be more affected than others? Would higher power levels lead to increased geographic distance between base stations operated by different licensees? If so, could the increased distance potentially limit the number of simultaneous users in the band, making it less efficient in terms of number of users per megahertz? Would an increase in power lead to in-band or adjacent band coexistence issues between commercial wireless operators and, if so, would some types of deployments be affected more than others? If higher power devices are permitted, should we require the SASs to make any changes to their operations to ensure the equitable division of power levels and channel assignments between different users and types of operations?

28. Commenters that support the addition of new higher power CBSD classes are encouraged to provide detailed technical analyses of any changes to incumbent protection criteria—including possible increases in the size of DPA neighborhoods and any corresponding increase in burdens on SAS administrators—that such changes might entail. Commenters should also provide technical and cost-benefit analyses on any potential impacts to commercial wireless operators in and adjacent to the 3.5 GHz band. Such analyses should explicitly address the impact of higher power CBSDs on the wide variety of Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations that have already been deployed in the 3.5 GHz band in reliance on the current rules. We also note that any changes to federal incumbent protection criteria—including any proposed changes to DPAs or DPA neighborhood distances—will need to be coordinated with NTIA and DoD.

29. Stakeholders in the 3.5 GHz band have also expressed an interest in aligning UE power levels with 3GPP standards. For example, both DISH and CCA propose increasing Citizens Broadband Radio Service UE power limits to allow operations at 26 dBm (instead of 23 dBm) which is in line with the 3GPP High Power UEs (HPUEs) definition. We seek comment on aligning UE power levels in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service with 3GPP standards. We also seek comment on the costs and benefits of allowing higher power End User devices to operate in the 3.5 GHz band. Given that UEs are not directly controlled by SASs, we seek comment on what the potential impact of introducing higher power UEs will be on incumbent operators and other Citizens Broadband Radio service users. Commenters supporting increased UE power levels should describe, in detail, how harmful interference from higher power UEs should be prevented. Specifically, commenters should indicate what protection measures should be put in place to prevent higher power UEs from causing harmful interference to incumbents and Priority Access Licensees in the band. We note that any proposed changes that may impact federal operations will have to be coordinated with NTIA and DoD.

30. Fundamental to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service is the requirement that certified SASs must register and authorize all CBSDs. Notably, to facilitate timely and accurate coordination, the part 96 rules require CBSDs to maintain SAS connectivity so they can update the SAS of a change in status and comply with SAS instructions within seconds of a triggering event. Each CBSD must register with, and receive authorization from, a SAS prior to its initial service transmission and must update the SAS within 60 seconds of any changes in its registration information, including the device's specific location. A CBSD must also receive and comply with any incoming commands from its associated SAS regarding any changes to power limits and frequency assignments within 60 seconds of receiving them, i.e., a CBSD must cease transmission, move to another frequency, or change its power level within 60 seconds as instructed by a SAS. These SAS connectivity and communications requirements help to ensure that higher tier operations—including federal operations—are continuously protected from harmful interference and that operations within the same tier can be effectively coordinated.

31. Since commercial services were first introduced in the band, the Commission has granted relief via conditional waiver to the National Football League (NFL) from specific SAS connectivity and communications rules and has worked with NTIA to implement broader relief from SAS signaling requirements in geographic areas and portions of the spectrum band that are outside of the scope of current federal operations. The NFL's waiver allows it to continue operating its GAA-based, coach-to-coach communications systems without connectivity to a SAS in the event of a localized internet outage in an NFL stadium during football game, provided a SAS had authorized the operations. This waiver and subsequent extensions imposed additional technical requirements (including ISP redundancy), and assigned detailed reporting requirements to the NFL.

32. In addition, WTB and OET, working in close collaboration with NTIA, permitted the SAS administrators to extend the CBSD reauthorization period from 300 seconds to 24 hours in geographic areas and portions of the spectrum band that are outside of the scope of current federal operations to provide a more stable and predictable spectrum environment for Citizens Broadband Radio Service users while ensuring an interference-free environment for critical federal operations. This approach will also ensure that SAS administrators will be able to timely respond to instructions from the President of the United States, or another designated Federal Government entity, issued pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 606.

33. In light of these developments, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are other specific circumstances that may warrant less restrictive application of SAS connectivity requirements. Specifically, we seek comment on what, if any, circumstances or deployment types may warrant an alternate approach to SAS connectivity. If we were to provide some degree of situational flexibility, what changes to our SAS connectivity requirements should we consider? Should Citizens Broadband Radio Service users be required to renew access to any alternative approach periodically and, if so, what period would be appropriate? Should we provide more general, time limited relief to Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators in the event of a SAS outage or other connectivity issue?

34. The Commission also welcomes feedback on what factors to take into account in determining whether to relax SAS connectivity in specific circumstances. For example, should we consider different SAS connectivity requirements for spectrum usage that is both geographically and temporally confined ( e.g., where the potential for interference is tempered by terrain attenuation or involves spectrum uses that are short in duration)? Along those lines, should we provide greater flexibility for low powered Category A CBSDs or should we provide flexibility to all CBSDs in circumstances where transmissions are less likely to cause harmful interference? If the latter, what would those circumstances be?

35. The Commission seeks comment on how federal operators and other incumbent users would be protected if we adopt more flexible SAS connectivity rules for some situations. If we modify our SAS connectivity requirements to reflect specific uses or circumstances, how should we implement such changes to ensure that incumbent federal operations, and other higher tier operators in the band, are protected? Would such changes increase the likelihood that higher tier users, including federal incumbents, would be subject to harmful interference? How, specifically, could interference issues be avoided or mitigated? Commenters that support changes to the current SAS connectivity rules should describe the underlying costs and benefits of their proposals and are encouraged to provide detailed information, including technical analyses, that show how any interference issues between and among 3.5 GHz band users would be avoided or mitigated. We note that any proposed changes that may impact federal operations will have to be coordinated with NTIA and DoD.

36. In the 3.45 GHz Second Report and Order, the Commission allocated the 3.45 GHz band on an unpaired basis to promote a consistent spectral environment with adjacent 3.5 GHz and 3.7 GHz bands, both of which are also unpaired in the United States. Recognizing the benefits to all operators that come from TDD synchronization both within and across bands, the Commission found that the record indicated that TDD synchronization, where feasible, may assist in avoiding harmful interference between the 3.45 GHz Service and Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations. To minimize the potential for causing or receiving harmful interference while maintaining deployment flexibility and efficiency, the Commission encouraged intra-band synchronization where possible and required 3.45 GHz Service licensees to negotiate in good faith with requesting Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators to enable TDD synchronization across the two adjacent services.

37. While the 3.45 GHz Second Report and Order required negotiations concerning the information to be provided to be conducted in good faith, with the goal of enabling TDD synchronization between the relevant systems, it did not impose an obligation on the 3.45 GHz Service licensee to make any corresponding changes to its operations or proposed operations, stating that parties are free to negotiate changes to either or both networks as part of their efforts. The Commission declined at the time to require TDD synchronization between networks operating in the adjacent 3.45 GHz and 3.5 GHz bands. The Commission was concerned that mandating TDD synchronization could undermine operator flexibility in determining the best use of this spectrum, especially as use cases and technologies change over time. The Commission now seeks comment on whether to impose out-of-band TDD coordination procedures on Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensees to make sure data sharing occurs on a bilateral basis between 3.45 GHz Service and Citizens Broadband Radio Service users seeking to provide service in the same or adjacent geographic areas. We also seek comment on whether Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators should have an obligation to make any corresponding changes to their operations to facilitate TDD synchronization or if we should simply permit parties to negotiate changes to their respective networks.

38. The Commission declined to impose similar TDD synchronization measures on 3.7 GHz Service licensees; consequently there is no negotiation or coordination required between 3.7 GHz Service operators and Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. Similarly, the part 96 rules do not impose any obligation on Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensees to share TDD synchronization information upon request with adjacent band operators in either the 3.45 GHz or the 3.7 GHz Services. Given the changed circumstances in the adjacent band since the last time that the part 96 rules were examined, we seek comment on whether to impose out-of-band coordination requirements on Citizens Broadband Radio Service operators to encourage TDD synchronization with the adjacent 3.7 GHz band.

39. We also welcome feedback generally on the potential benefits and drawbacks of imposing in-band TDD coordination procedures on Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensees given the tiered licensing structure in the 3.5 GHz band. Could an in-band TDD synchronization requirement decrease the potential for harmful interference between operators in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service? Could TDD synchronization be equitably applied across the myriad use cases supported by the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, including GAA deployments? Could such requirements be managed at the SAS level and, if so, how would they be enforced? Would TDD synchronization improve the SASs' ability to coordinate between and among Citizens Broadband Radio Service users in the band? Would such requirements improve spectrum availability for synchronized operators? Would imposing TDD requirements impose new burdens on operators in the band? We encourage commenters to support their proposals with detailed cost benefit analyses and technical submissions.

40. In developing the part 96 rules, the Commission adopted various measures to protect incumbent FSS earth stations, including the establishment of an annual registration requirement to protect qualified in-band FSS earth stations as well as adjacent 3.7-4.2 GHz band FSS earth stations used for satellite telemetry, tracking, and control (TT&C). For SASs to adequately protect FSS incumbents, the Commission stated that SASs must be able to access detailed information regarding the technical and operational characteristics of each FSS earth station seeking protection and, if any of these characteristics change, the FSS earth station licensee requesting protection must update the relevant registration in the 3.5 GHz FSS database. To initiate this protection framework, the Commission required that FSS earth stations be registered and renewed annually.

41. Under the current rules, in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band only FSS earth stations used for TT&C are eligible for protection and some of those sites have been consolidated or taken off-line as part of the 3.7 GHz transition process. Moreover, while grandfathered FSS operators in the 3.5 GHz band retain incumbent status for active FSS earth stations, some of these earth stations may have been taken offline as a result of the 3.7 GHz transition process. Given these developments in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, we seek comment on whether we should consider changes to § 96.17 and § 96.21 of the Commission's rules, which were adopted to protect incumbent FSS operations in and adjacent to the 3.5 GHz band. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should limit protection of TT&C sites in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to those facilities that were specifically identified in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order and subsequent satellite operator submissions. We also seek comment more generally on whether we should modify section 96.17 of the Commission's rules to require FSS operators to provide additional technical or operational parameters as part of their annual registration submission to ensure that SASs have the most up-to-date and accurate information necessary to protect registered in-band and adjacent band FSS earth stations against harmful interference from Citizens Broadband Radio Service users operating in the 3.5 GHz band. What additional information would be useful?

42. We propose to clarify the Commission's rules to state that SASs no longer have to apply the protection criteria in 47 CFR part 90, subpart Z, to protect FSS earth stations in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band now that the transition window for Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees has closed. Specifically, we propose to delete § 96.21 now that incumbent Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band have completed their transition from part 90 to part 96 of the Commission's rules. Rather, the protection criteria set forth in § 96.17 for FSS earth stations in the 3.6-3.65 GHz band will apply to all grandfathered FSS earth stations in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band going forward. We seek comment on this proposal.

43. In establishing service rules for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the Commission adopted a transition period for certain part 90 incumbent Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band to upgrade their equipment to comply with the part 96 rules. Recognizing the challenges associated with the regulatory transition and the significant investment, the Commission provided additional protections and a “reasonable transition period” for these Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees. Under the transition framework, Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees were given at least five years to transition their operations to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, or to discontinue operations in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band. January 8, 2023 was the latest possible transition deadline for Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees to either complete their transition to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service or discontinue operations in the band. If a Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees failed to transition its sites to part 96 operations by that date then the licensee's sites are no longer authorized (unless a waiver or extension of the deadline had been granted).

44. We therefore propose to sunset the rules set forth in part 90, subpart Z that apply to wireless broadband services in the 3.65-3.7 GHz band and the corresponding rules protecting part 90 licenses from Citizens Broadband Radio Service operations. We tentatively conclude these rules are no longer needed as the transition period for the last Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensee's license ended on January 8, 2023. We seek comment on this proposal.

45. We seek comment on the efficacy of the current professional installation regime and whether any rule changes are needed to ensure that CBSDs are installed and maintained correctly. Do the current rules sufficiently ensure that CBSD locations and configurations are reported accurately? If not, what improvements could be made to better address the need for accurate CBSD information in this band? We also seek comment on whether some devices that are classified as Category B devices under the rules ( e.g., outdoor Category A devices installed over 6 meters high, devices used solely as customer premise equipment, etc.) could be safely installed and operated without a CPI. If so, what safeguards should be required to ensure that such devices do not cause harmful interference to incumbent operators and other Citizens Broadband Radio Service users? Commenters are encouraged to provide specific feedback and to consider the costs and benefits for various use cases and network deployments.

46. In the 3.5 GHz FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether it would be in the public interest to allow critical users—such as hospitals, public safety organizations, and local governments—to receive interference protection, akin to Priority Access licensees, within a limited portion of the GAA pool for indoor use within their own buildings. The 3.5 GHz FNPRM proposed that such Contained Access Users would be required to accept interference from GAA transmissions originating outside of their buildings and to undertake reasonable efforts to safeguard against harmful interference from those transmissions. After reviewing the record, the Commission declined to adopt the Contained Access Facility (CAF) proposal in the 3.5 GHz First Report and Order. At the time, the Commission indicated that the potential need for such protection was outweighed by the additional costs and burdens of implementing this special priority within GAA use, but left the door open for further consideration.

47. Since 2015, the market for low power indoor operations has continued to develop, and the Commission has taken steps to authorize such operations with fewer restrictions than the Commission applied to outdoor deployments in the same spectrum bands. Notably, in the 6 GHz Report and Order, the Commission authorized unlicensed low-power indoor access points across the entire 6 GHz band, stating that they would be ideal for connecting devices in homes and businesses such as smartphones, tablet devices, laptops, and internet-of-things (IoT) devices to the internet. Similarly, in the 5.9 GHz First Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules allowing unlicensed indoor operations across the entire 5.850-5.895 GHz portion of the 5.9 GHz band by setting specific power and technical limits to protect ITS service and federal radar operations from harmful interference. Adopting the same equipment-related hardware requirements as the 6 GHz band, the Commission permitted an exception to accommodate devices such as Wi-Fi extenders and mesh networking equipment that work in conjunction with an indoor access point and share the same propagation path, and thus the same power requirements, but stated that these devices could only be used within a single structure and not connect separate buildings or structures.

48. In addition, 3GPP implemented new 5G New Radio (5G NR) standards, some of which included new and enhanced features related to non-public networks. Industry stakeholders and analysts have also touted the expected rise of new opportunities in private networks in the 3.5 GHz band and elsewhere. The combination of the Commission's recent work on indoor deployments, developments in the standards process, and growing industry interest in private wireless networks, may support a reassessment of how the part 96 rules treat low power indoor operations, and private networks more generally, in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. To that end, we seek comment on whether there are steps we can take to facilitate additional use of the 3.5 GHz band for low power indoor operations, including private networks. Specifically, should we allow operators to reserve some amount of GAA spectrum for private, low-power indoor operations—akin to the CAF approach—and, if so, what parameters should be established to ensure equitable access to spectrum resources and safeguard other operators from harmful interference? What specific use cases would benefit from this type of reservation model? Should eligibility be reserved for certain categories of users ( e.g., public safety organizations, medical care facilities, etc.) or should it be more generally available? We also seek comment on whether we should adopt equipment-related hardware requirements and operational parameters similar to those adopted for indoor services in the 5.9 GHz and 6 GHz bands given that users in those bands are, in some cases, deploying low-power devices similar to Category A CBSDs and, if we did so, whether we would need to make any adjustments for 3.5 GHz band operations?

49. In addition, some network operators may be interested in using 3.5 GHz spectrum to operate drones within the confines of their indoor facilities. Such airborne operations are prohibited by the current service rules. Given that building attenuation is a key factor in minimizing potentially harmful interference from indoor access points to incumbent receivers, should the Commission expressly allow the operation of drones connected to various low-power access points within a single structure or building? Would such operations be possible without causing harmful interference to higher tier operations? How would SAS administrators coordinate indoor drone operations? Would such operations benefit from some amount of reserved GAA spectrum (akin to the CAF model)?

50. Finally, we seek comment on whether a GAA spectrum reservation system—or other methods—could be used to facilitate and support the growing interest in private networks more generally. For instance, could a CAF-like GAA spectrum reservation system be used to support some outdoor private networks in geographically contained areas ( e.g., corporate campuses or manufacturing facilities)? What effects would such a system have on spectrum access for other Citizens Broadband Radio Service users and the overall spectrum environment in the band? Are there other technical or policy approaches that we should consider to support deployment of private networks in the 3.5 GHz band? We ask that commenters submit detailed technical and/or economic analysis to support their positions, including assessments of the overall impact on spectrum availability and the potential effects on both incumbent operators and other Citizens Broadband Radio Service users.

51. To ensure flexibility for the development of the 3.5 GHz band, the Commission encouraged private industry to develop and implement the parameters of GAA coexistence. Section 96.35 of the Commission's rules sets forth the terms by which GAA users can access and use spectrum in the band. The rules require GAA users operating Category B CBSDs to make every effort to cooperate in the selection and use of available frequencies provided by a SAS to minimize the potential for interference and make the most effective use of the authorized facilities. GAA users must also make every effort to ensure that their CBSDs operate at a location, and with technical parameters, that will minimize the potential to cause and receive interference among CBSDs. Operators of CBSDs suffering from or causing harmful interference are expected to cooperate and resolve interference problems through technological solutions or by other mutually satisfactory arrangements. As GAA use has rapidly increased in the past four years, the potential for conflict among and between GAA users has increased as well.

52. We note that it is Commission policy to “be proactive in supporting `good neighbor' policies that promote more efficient and effective co-existence among spectrum users.” Accordingly, we seek comment on whether we should adopt rules to ensure equitable treatment of different GAA operators. Specifically, we seek comment on whether there are new rules, or clarifications of current rules, that could foster coexistence and preempt disputes among GAA users in a manner that will also advance GAA spectrum use and continued deployment of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Alternately, would the development of specific coexistence criteria be better left to multistakeholder groups? What would be the costs and benefits of any such rule changes and what impact would they have on existing and future GAA deployments? What role should the SASs play in monitoring GAA users' compliance with any such new rules? How could such rules be equitably enforced by the Commission? Commenters are encouraged to provide specific proposals, along with supporting technical and cost-benefit analyses, to support their proposals.

53. Conforming Changes. We take this opportunity to propose non-substantive edits to three rule sections we are otherwise revising, §§ 96.15, 96.17, and 96.30, to conform to the current stylistic requirements of the Office of the Federal Register.

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

55. In addition to seeking comment on proposed changes to our rules in the NPRM, we also adopt a Declaratory Ruling to clarify § 96.55(a) of our rules. Section 96.55(a)(3) provides that “SAS Administrators shall not disclose specific CBSD registration information to the general public except where such disclosure is authorized by the registrant.” Through this Declaratory Ruling, we confirm that NTIA and DoD are not considered “the general public” for purposes of this information disclosure provision.

56. We recognize that NTIA and DoD possess equitable interests as government agencies that manage and hold co-primary spectrum rights in the 3.5 GHz band. We also note that NTIA and DoD have been critical partners in every phase of this proceeding and they are actively engaged in ongoing efforts to refine federal protection criteria and apply technical solutions to maximize commercial access to the 3.5 GHz spectrum and facilitate CBSD deployments in the band. To date, the part 96 information disclosure rule does not specify explicitly that NTIA and DoD are not considered “the general public.” By adopting this clarification, we ensure that NTIA and DoD can access CBSD registration information if either government agency requests such information from any SAS. On our own motion, we confirm that NTIA and DoD are not considered “the general public” under § 96.55(a).

57. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning potential rule and policy changes contained in the NPRM. The IRFA is contained in Appendix B of the NPRM.

58. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to make specific adjustments to the regulatory framework of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service spectrum sharing model in order to better protect federal operations and to maximize the amount of spectrum available for commercial broadband. Additionally, the NPRM seeks to improve the technical and service rules for the 3.5 GHz band to reflect changes in the operational environment for both Priority Access License (PAL) licensees and Citizens Broadband Radio Service licensees by soliciting and obtaining feedback from Citizens Broadband Radio Service users, equipment manufacturers, prospective operators, and other stakeholders. Through comments, the Commission seeks to identify how we can best support the Commission's goals of achieving continued growth in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, fostering innovation, and building on the novel three-tiered sharing regime that was created to facilitate real-time spectrum sharing in the band.

59. As discussed above, the NPRM is a continuation of the Commission's efforts since the 3.5 GHz First Report and Order was adopted to work with our federal partners and industry stakeholders towards developing and implementing refinements to improve and expand spectrum access in the 3.5 GHz band. The NPRM proposes specific adjustments to the regulatory framework of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service to better protect federal operations and to maximize the amount of spectrum available for commercial broadband. To facilitate these goals, the NPRM seeks comment on a variety of matters such as making improvements to the part 96 rules that protect federal incumbent users in the 3.5 GHz band, modifying technical rules to optimize the potential uses of the band for the next generation of wireless services, while minimizing the impact on adjacent band incumbents consistent with the public interest; improving operating rules and regulatory issues, and measures to ensure professional installation and facilitate General Authorized Access (GAA) user coexistence in the band. Beyond federal protection measures, the NPRM also seeks comment on whether changes to the part 96 technical and service rules are necessary to clarify our information disclosure requirements, align out of band emissions (OOBE) limits with those in adjacent bands, permit higher power levels; relax Spectrum Access Systems (SAS) connectivity requirements, impose Time Division Duplex (TDD) coordination procedures, update protection measures for certain grandfathered incumbent licensees, address issues surrounding professional installation, accommodate private networks and low power indoor facilities, or adopt guidelines to encourage GAA user coexistence.

60. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302a(a), 303, and 307(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a(a), 303, and 307(e).

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

62. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses.

63. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.

64. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

65. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

66. Radio Frequency Equipment Manufacturers (RF Manufacturers). There are several analogous industries with an SBA small business size standard that are applicable to RF Manufacturers. These industries are Fixed Microwave Services, Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. A description of 7

67. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. They also include the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS), Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz), Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), 24 GHz Service, Multiple Address Systems (MAS), and Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS), where in some bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers ( except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.

68. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to fixed microwave services involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in fixed microwave services. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in fixed microwave services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified in Part 101 of the Commission's rules for the specific fixed microwave services frequency bands.

69. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

70. Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing communications equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment). Examples of such manufacturing include fire detection and alarm systems manufacturing, Intercom systems and equipment manufacturing, and signals ( e.g., highway, pedestrian, railway, traffic) manufacturing. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having 750 or fewer employees as small. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 shows that 321 firms operated for the entire year. Of that number, 310 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, we conclude that the majority of Other Communications Equipment Manufacturers are small.

71. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having 1,250 employees or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 had fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in this industry are small.

72. The Commission expects the rules proposed in the NPRM will impose new and/or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other compliance obligations on small entities as well as other applicants and licensees, if adopted. We also note that in addition to the proposed rule changes discussed above, there will likely be other new compliance obligations that emerge based on feedback received through comments. The reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance obligations proposed for small entities and other licensees are described below.

73. In order to comply with the proposed rules, should they be adopted, small entities and other licensees would be subject to certain technical rules established to maximize the flexible use of the 3.5 GHz band spectrum while minimizing the impact on adjacent band incumbents, an approach that is consistent with the public interest. In addition to aligning the technical rules for this band with those adopted in the 3.7 GHz band, we propose and seek comment on technical rules regarding power limits, out-of-band emissions limits, antenna height limits, service area boundary limits, international coordination requirements, and any other technical rules that will most effectively meet our objectives of optimizing use of the band without causing harmful interference to new, non-federal licensees and federal incumbents operating in adjacent bands.

74. Small entities may be required to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals to comply with the proposed rules in the NPRM, if adopted. In particular, for small entities that are not existing operators and do not have existing staffing dedicated to regulatory compliance, engineering and legal expertise may be necessary to make the requisite filings and to demonstrate compliance with the proposed performance obligations. At this time, while the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the proposed rule changes, we note that several of the proposed changes are consistent with and mirror existing policies and requirements used for other part 27 flexible use licenses. Therefore, small entities with existing licenses in other bands may already be familiar with such policies and requirements and have the processes and procedures in place to facilitate compliance resulting in minimal incremental costs for compliance should similar requirements be adopted for 3.5 GHz band spectrum. We also note that for most of the proposals and requests for comments in the NPRM, the Commission also requests a cost and benefit analysis. The Commission expects that the information it receives in comments will help it to identify and evaluate all relevant matters associated with the proposed reallocation and the relocation of public safety operations out of the band, including compliance costs and other burdens on small entities.

75. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that could minimize impacts to small entities that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.” In the NPRM, the Commission has taken steps to minimize the economic burden on small entities that may occur if some of the proposed rule changes are adopted, and has also considered significant alternatives throughout the development of our proposals in the NPRM.

76. CBSD Information Availability. Given the rapid and ongoing growth of commercial deployments in the band—along with stakeholder interest in increased transparency, in the NPRM we considered whether the existing information disclosure rules provide sufficient data for current and future Citizens Broadband Radio Service users to plan their network deployments and to make informed decisions regarding investments in the band. Specifically, we considered whether the best approach would be to modify our disclosure rules to reinstate the original information for disclosure requirements, or whether implementing an alternative approach would be the more prudent course of action. In the NPRM, we seek comment on this matter, and request that commenters seeking alternative disclosure rules, including a reversion to the original information disclosure requirements, should explain how their approach would balance existing operator interest in protecting sensitive network information with the legitimate information needs of prospective service providers.

77. Technical Rules. In the NPRM, the Commission also considers whether there are opportunities to revise the rules governing the 3.5 GHz band to align the protection of specific federal systems and facilities given the spectrum sharing framework adopted in the adjacent 3.45 GHz band. Specifically, we considers whether 3.5 GHz protection methodologies could be aligned with 3.45 GHz protections—for the same systems and facilities—to increase commercial access to the band while maintaining necessary protection for federal incumbent users. The NPRM focuses its inquiry on whether there are opportunities to create efficiencies by modifying the protection mechanisms in the 3.5 GHz band to better align with those in the 3.45 GHz band.

78. Certified Professional Installation. Noting the importance of accurate location reporting by professional installers to SASs, particularly in terms of its impact on the ability of SASs to properly manage spectrum use in the band, the Commission strongly encouraged the SAS and Citizens Broadband Radio Service user community, through multistakeholder fora or industry associations, to develop programs for accrediting professional installers who will receive training in the relevant part 96 rules and associated technical best practices. The WTB and the OET issued a public notice detailing what SASs must demonstrate in their Initial Commercial Deployment (ICD) proposals, including a description of “Professional Installation” as “[t]he process that a certified professional installer (CPI) would follow to register CBSDs/DPs during ICD and an explanation regarding how that professional installation will ensure the SAS can accurately locate devices in compliance with part 96.” The NPRM seeks comment on the efficacy of the current professional installation regime and whether any rule changes are needed to ensure that CBSDs are properly installed and maintained correctly. Commenters are encouraged to provide specific feedback and to consider the costs and benefits for various use cases and network deployments.

79. Guidelines for GAA user coexistence. In the NPRM, the Commission also considered whether to adopt rules to ensure equitable treatment of different GAA operators. Specifically, we considered whether there are new rules, or clarifications of current rules, that could foster coexistence and preempt disputes among GAA users in a manner that will also advance GAA spectrum use and continued deployment of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. The NPRM asks what the costs and benefits are of any such rule changes as well as what impact they would have on existing and future GAA deployments. The NPRM also asks how such rules could be equitably enforced by the Commission. Commenters are encouraged to provide specific proposals, along with supporting technical and cost-benefit analyses, to support their proposals.

80. Further, the Commission considered different proposals and potential questions that might emerge from those proposals in order to help identify whether small entities face any special or unique issues with respect to buildout requirements and other requirements that would require certain alternatives, such as through different accommodations or by incorporating additional time for small entities to comply. The Commission also seeks comment on modifications that could be made to the Commission's rules regarding administrative processes in order to reduce the economic impacts of the proposed rule changes on small entities. By specifically targeting comments from small entities the Commission hopes to obtain the requisite data to allow it to evaluate the most cost-effective approach to minimize the economic impact for such entities, while achieving its statutory objectives.

81. Additionally, to assist with the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact on small entities that may result from the actions and alternatives that have been proposed in this proceeding, the NPRM seeks alternative proposals and requests additional information on the potential costs of such alternatives to licensees. The Commission expects to consider more fully the economic impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in response to the NPRM, including costs and benefits information. Alternative proposals and approaches from commenters could help the Commission further minimize the economic impact on small entities. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities from the final rules that are ultimately adopted.

This NPRM may contain new or modified information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. If the Commission adopts any new or modified information collection requirements, they will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

None.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 90 and 96 as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

The revisions and addition read as follows:

NMFS, with the advice of the Council, manages the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John fisheries in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters under the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John FMPs. The Council prepared the FMPs, which the Secretary of Commerce approved, and NMFS implements the FMPs 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 from federally managed fish stocks to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems.

On September 22, 2020, the Secretary of Commerce approved the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John FMPs under section 304(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. For Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), NMFS, with the advice of the Council, manages fisheries under the FMPs. NMFS published the final rule to implement the FMPs on September 13, 2022 (87 FR 56204). Each FMP contains management measures applicable for Federal waters in the respective island management area, including annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs) for dolphinfish and wahoo. Federal waters around Puerto Rico extend seaward from 9 nautical miles (nmi) or 16.7 kilometers (km) from shore to the offshore boundary of the U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Federal waters around St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John extend seaward from 3 nmi (5.6 km) from shore to the offshore boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ.

Prior to implementation of the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John FMPs, dolphinfish and wahoo were not federally managed in Federal waters in the U.S. Caribbean. Because of the economic importance of these fast-growing, short-lived pelagic species to the region, they were included for management under each of the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John FMPs, even though, given their migratory nature, they are exposed to harvest pressure across a wide area of the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. While each FMP established ACLs, ACTs, and AMs for dolphinfish and wahoo, the FMPs did not establish other management measures often used to limit harvest or effort such as size limits, recreational bag limits, or commercial trip limits.

At its December 2021 meeting, the Council began discussions on management measures that could be used to address the increasing opportunity for the overharvest of juvenile dolphinfish as a result of the increasing influx and presence of Sargassum in the region. Sargassum is a type of floating brown algae that provides food, protection, and habitat for many marine species. The Sargassum mats are natural fish aggregating devices for dolphinfish and wahoo, including juveniles of each species, making them easier to locate and catch by fishermen. In addition, the lack of information available on the recreational harvest of dolphinfish and wahoo and the potential for excess harvest of the species to occur during recreational fishing trips is a concern.

The Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John FMPs did not include minimum size limits for dolphinfish or wahoo because these species were new to Federal management in the U.S. Caribbean. Amendment 3 would establish minimum size limits for dolphinfish and wahoo for all fishing in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters (commercial and recreational sectors) to address the potential for small-sized ( i.e., juvenile) individuals of these species to be caught year-round. Dolphinfish and wahoo are usually seasonally-caught species, but the annual influx of Sargassum to the region increases the likelihood that smaller fish could easily be harvested. Although there currently is not a large market for smaller-sized dolphinfish or wahoo, such a fishery could develop in the future and the Council recommends being proactive in the management of these species. Protecting smaller-sized dolphinfish and wahoo increases the potential that they have enough time to reproduce before being harvested.

Currently, there are no recreational bag or possession limits for dolphinfish or wahoo for the same reasons noted above. Amendment 3 would establish recreational bag and possession limits for dolphinfish and wahoo to help regulate their harvest in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters by the recreational sector, for which catch and effort information are either limited or not available. While the Puerto Rico FMP established recreational sector ACLs and ACTs for dolphinfish and wahoo, the Marine Recreational Information Program that collected recreational data for Puerto Rico was suspended in 2017 and has not resumed to date. Recreational data were not collected for St. Croix or St. Thomas and St. John. As a result, neither the St. Croix FMP nor the St. Thomas and St. John FMP established sector-specific ACLs and ACTs for dolphinfish and wahoo. Though some catch information is available from recreational fishing tournaments that occur in Puerto Rico and the USVI, that information likely underrepresents the total number of dolphinfish or wahoo caught each year by the recreational sector. Thus, the number of recreational fishermen and the amount of dolphinfish or wahoo removed by the sector are largely unknown for the region. Setting recreational bag and possession limits for the recreational sector in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John could reduce the chance of overfishing the resource, while allowing fishermen access to the species.

The proposed recreational bag and possession limits for dolphinfish would be more conservative than the recreational bag and possession limits that apply in Puerto Rico territorial waters, but consistent with the recreational bag and possession limits that apply in St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John territorial waters. With respect to wahoo, the proposed recreational bag and possession limits would be consistent with the recreational bag and possession limits that apply in Puerto Rico territorial waters, but more conservative than the recreational bag and possession limits that apply in St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John territorial waters. Compatible regulations make it easier for fishermen to comply with the regulations and for law enforcement to monitor compliance to the regulations.

During development of Amendment 3, the Council also considered actions to establish commercial trip limits for dolphinfish and wahoo. Because the commercial landings of dolphinfish and wahoo in each island management area have been less than the corresponding ACLs, the Council recommended that additional harvest constraints for the commercial sector were not needed at this time.

For dolphinfish and wahoo, Amendment 3 would establish commercial and recreational minimum size limits and recreational bag and possession limits in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John.

Currently, no minimum size limits are in place for dolphinfish or wahoo in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John. All sizes of dolphinfish or wahoo that are caught by commercial or recreational fishermen can be retained, though subject to the applicable ACLs and ACTs. For commercial and recreational fishing in the Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John, Amendment 3 would establish a 24 inches (61.0 centimeters (cm)) fork length (FL), minimum size limit for dolphinfish and a 32 inches (81.3 cm) FL, minimum size limit for wahoo. As described in Amendment 3, these minimum size limits are based on size at maturity information reported for each species in the U.S. Caribbean.

Currently, no recreational bag or possession limits are in place for dolphinfish or wahoo in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John. All dolphinfish or wahoo that are caught by recreational fishermen in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters during a recreational fishing trip can be retained, though subject to the applicable ACLs and ACTs. For Federal waters around Puerto Rico, Amendment 3 would establish a recreational bag and possession limit of 5 dolphinfish per person per day, not to exceed 15 dolphinfish per vessel per day, whichever is less and a recreational bag and possession limit of 5 wahoo per person per day, not to exceed 10 wahoo per vessel per day, whichever is less. For Federal waters around St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John, Amendment 3 would establish recreational bag and possession limits of 10 dolphinfish per person per day, not to exceed 32 dolphinfish per vessel per day, whichever is less and recreational bag and possession limits of 2 wahoo per person per day, not to exceed 10 wahoo per vessel per day, whichever is less. As described in Amendment 3, these recreational bag and possession limits proposed for Federal waters are either consistent with, or more conservative than, current territorial bag limit regulations for dolphinfish and wahoo.

A proposed rule to implement Amendment 3 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with Amendment 3, the FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.

The Council has submitted Amendment 3 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 3 must be received by November 5, 2024. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to Amendment 3 or the proposed rule will be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 3. Comments received after the comment periods will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on Amendment 3 or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

Atlantic HMS fisheries ( i.e., tunas, billfish, swordfish, and sharks) are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) and consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ). HMS implementing regulations are at 50 CFR part 635. The regulations specific to HMS reporting can be found at § 635.5. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, among other things, requires FMPs to specify the data which shall be submitted to the Secretary with respect to commercial, recreational, and charter fishing (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(5)), thus authorizing the collection of such data. In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes NMFS to require permits and “such other measures, requirements, or conditions and restrictions as are determined to be necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery” (16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(1), (14)).

The purpose of this rulemaking is to: (1) streamline and modernize reporting through electronic reporting and consolidation of reporting deadlines, including converting existing commercial paper logbooks to electronic logbooks; (2) expand electronic logbook reporting to additional commercial and charter/headboat vessel owners; and (3) collect additional information from dealers through existing electronic reporting mechanisms. The expansion of reporting requirements would create consistency with NMFS efforts in other fisheries and augment data necessary for fishery science and management. Electronic logbook reporting is a step towards streamlining HMS reporting for commercial, for-hire, and private recreational fisheries consistent with the “One Stop Reporting” initiative for HMS, Greater Atlantic Region, and Southeast Region fisheries. The intent of the “One Stop Reporting” initiative is to expand capabilities for the submission of a single electronic report to satisfy overlapping reporting requirements of vessels holding permits in multiple regions. The need for each action is described in more detail below, under the following topics and respective alternatives: A. Electronic Logbook for HMS Commercial Limited Access Permits; B. Electronic Logbook for Atlantic Tunas General Category Permit, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon Category Permit, Swordfish General Commercial Permit, and HMS Charter/Headboat Permit; C. HMS Angling Permit Reporting Requirements; and D. HMS Dealer Reporting: Individual Fish Reports and Technical Change in Bluefin Tuna Reporting Requirements.

Implementation of the measures proposed in this rulemaking is contingent on available funding. Implementation of some or all aspects of the preferred alternatives may be delayed pending funding availability and any needed development of, or changes to, electronic reporting systems/applications. In addition to comments on the alternatives themselves, should delayed implementation be necessary, NMFS is requesting comments on which alternatives the public feels are most important.

NMFS is proposing to clarify in this rulemaking that the owner of a vessel with an HMS permit is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all reports are submitted in a timely and accurate manner. NMFS is aware that currently vessel operators and owners complete reporting obligations according to each vessel's business practices. The proposed regulations make clear that even though commercial and for-hire vessel owners may allow the vessel operator or another person to submit all required reports, the onus and responsibility is on the vessel owner. However, because both owners and operators may submit reports, the description of proposed measures and other alternatives in this preamble refer to vessel “owners/operators.”

NMFS published an ANPRM on May 12, 2023 (88 FR 30699) that described the reporting topics addressed in this rulemaking and provided management options. NMFS presented the ANPRM to the HMS Advisory Panel, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, and held five in-person and two virtual public hearings. The ANPRM comment period ended August 18, 2023. Written comments submitted on the ANPRM can be viewed at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NMFS-2023-0047. NMFS considered all the comments received in the development of this proposed rule.

As described in more detail below, the preferred alternatives and sub-alternatives in this action are:

• Alternative A1. Format for submission of logbooks and associated weighout slips.

○ Sub-alternative A1b. Vessel owners/operators would complete and submit logbook entries electronically; submit an uploaded file of the weighout slip with logbook submission. NMFS would offer a voluntary standardized weighout slip form.

• Alternative A2. Timing requirement for logbook submission.

○ Sub-alternative A2b. Vessel owners/operators would be required to submit logbook entries within 7 days of offloading all HMS, including the cost-earnings portion of the logbook for selected vessel owners.

• Alternative B1. Electronic logbook requirements.

○ Sub-alternative B1c. NMFS would expand species and trip reporting requirements via electronic logbook for vessels with Atlantic Tunas General category, Harpoon category, Swordfish General Commercial, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permits. Vessel owners would report through an electronic system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting.

Require electronic logbook submission for all trips, regardless of whether fish are caught.

Require reporting of all species caught, including non-HMS

Collect fishing location information.

Require monthly no-fishing reports.

• Alternative B2. Timing requirement for electronic logbook submission.

○ Sub-alternative B2a. Vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed electronic logbook reports within 24 hours of the end of the trip.

• Alternative B3. Cost and earnings information.

○ Sub-alternative B3c. All vessel owners/operators would submit some cost and earnings information for each trip in the electronic logbook, and vessel owners selected by NMFS for a given calendar year would submit additional cost and earnings information via annual survey.

• Alternative C2. The same as the status quo with the exception of removing the option to report via telephone.

• Alternative D2. Expand individual fish weights that dealers would be required to report to: bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas, swordfish, and pelagic sharks.

• Alternative D4. Would remove the requirement to submit a bi-weekly report for bluefin tuna.

Owners/operators of vessels with HMS commercial limited access permits ( i.e., Atlantic Tunas Longline category, shark directed, shark incidental, swordfish directed, swordfish incidental, and swordfish handgear) are all currently selected for logbook reporting under § 635.5(a)(1) and thus are required to report their fishing activities in a paper logbook. Logbooks require information on the gear used, the date(s) a fishing trip occurred, the quantity of fish caught, and the fishing location. Because commercial vessel owners/operators report these data themselves, it is referred to as “self-reported” data. Different logbooks are required for the different fisheries and their use depends on the data collection needs and requirements of the different fisheries. The current logbooks ( i.e., Atlantic HMS logbook and Southeast Coastal Fisheries Logbook Program) are described below.

Owners/operators of HMS permitted vessels using pelagic longline gear are required to use the Atlantic HMS logbook, and HMS vessel owners who are selected to report and who use other gear types, including rod and reel, green-stick, and bottom longline gear, may also report fishing activities in this logbook (or in the Southeast Coastal Fisheries Logbook Program described below). The vessels using the Atlantic HMS logbook primarily target swordfish and tunas.

There are currently three forms that must be submitted for an Atlantic HMS logbook report to be complete: (1) the trip report form; (2) the set report form; and (3) the weighout slips ( i.e., tally sheets), which report individual dressed weights for all fish sold. The trip report form provides information on the trip itself ( e.g., the start and end dates, the vessel name and identification number, which dealers purchased landings, and port information). Economic information, such as the total cost of trip expenses ( e.g., groceries, fuel), is also collected on the cost-earnings portion of this form from those vessel owners who are randomly selected on an annual basis under § 635.5(a)(1) (20 percent of the fleet). The set report form provides information on an individual fishing set, including the specific latitude and longitude coordinates at which gear was set and hauled back, the amount of gear used, and the number and species of fish kept, released alive, and discarded dead, and interactions with protected species. Each logbook submission includes only one trip form but may include numerous set report forms. The weighout slips (50 CFR 635.5(a)(2)) record the individual carcass weights of fish purchased by each individual dealer. These weighout slips containing information on weights of fish purchased are typically generated by the dealer and provided to the vessel owner/operator, but some vessel owner/operators also create these slips. If no fishing trips occurred during a given month, the No Fishing Reporting Form is required. The No Fishing Reporting Form confirms that vessel owners/operators are not fishing, as opposed to not reporting.

The Southeast Coastal Fisheries Logbook Program (Coastal Fisheries logbook) is also used to collect HMS landings information. It is primarily used by vessel owners/operators with commercial shark permits who do not use pelagic longline gear and by vessel owners/operators with permits in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions to report fishing activity in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish, South Atlantic snapper/grouper, coastal migratory pelagic fish ( i.e., king and Spanish mackerel and cobia), shark, and Atlantic dolphin/wahoo fisheries. The Coastal Fisheries logbook is primarily used for bottom longline, gillnet, and vertical line (including bandit) gear, but other gear types can also be reported here. The Coastal Fisheries logbook has only a trip report form, and if selected, vessel owners/operators have to complete a trip expense section on the trip report form and/or a separate discard form, as described below. Vessel owners/operators are also required to indicate if they have not fished for a given month by submitting a No Fishing Reporting Form.

The Coastal Fisheries logbook trip report form includes information specific to the trip, such as vessel name and identification number and dates of the trip. Unlike the reporting forms in the Atlantic HMS logbook, the Coastal Fisheries logbook collects information on the gear, location, and species encountered for an entire trip rather than on every set of the fishing trip. Gear effort information ( e.g., number of hooks, lines fished, length of longline) are reported as either totals or the average for an entire trip, rather than the specific number of hooks or length of line for each set. Vessel owners/operators also indicate their fishing area as a four digit code, in accordance with a statistical grid map, to indicate where the majority of each species was caught. The grid numbers follow lines of latitude and longitude. The “species kept” is also reported in total weight for the entire trip, not in numbers of fish per set like for the Atlantic HMS logbook. Economic information, such as the total cost of groceries and fuel, is collected on this form and is required for each trip from a group of vessel owners/operators representing 20 percent of the active fleet randomly selected annually.

Unlike the Atlantic HMS logbook, the trip form does not record information on released or discarded fish or protected species; however, vessel owners/operators can write in these observations if desired. A separate discard logbook form, specifically for the recording of released or discarded fish and protected species, is required for approximately 20 percent of those vessel owners/operators, selected at random each year. This discard form is also trip based and does not have specific location data available for each set. Additionally, this logbook form does not provide specific information on individual fish that are discarded dead or alive but instead are collected as a summary for the entire trip. For each species reported on the discard form, vessel owners/operators are required to report the following: whether all the fish were discarded dead, most were discarded dead, all were discarded alive, most were discarded alive, some were kept but not sold ( e.g., if they used the fish as bait), or the owner/operator was unable to determine which category to check. Vessel owners/operators may also report “no discards,” indicating that no individuals of any species were discarded during the fishing trip, when submitting a discard logbook form.

Both the Atlantic HMS logbook and the Coastal Fisheries logbook are administered by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) and have historically required submission of paper forms. NMFS is currently working on creating an electronic reporting system to replace the paper logbooks, with the working title of the SEFSC Commercial Electronic Logbook. It is expected that, once the electronic logbook system is fully developed and implemented, electronic logbook submission would replace paper submission. One or more electronic reporting applications would be available to vessel owners/operators to transmit the required information to the SEFSC Commercial Electronic Logbook. Electronic logbook reporting would also allow for the submission of a single electronic report that could be used to satisfy overlapping reporting requirements of vessels holding permits in multiple regions, as part of the NMFS “One Stop Reporting” initiative. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council together with the NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO) have developed a joint FMP amendment that would maintain the reporting requirements for commercial vessels through the Coastal Fisheries logbook but require electronic submission of reports using available software. The joint FMP amendment has been submitted to NMFS for review and action. More information on the joint FMP amendment affecting the Coastal Fisheries logbook can be found at: https://safmc.net/amendments/dolphin-wahoo-amendment-4/ and at: https://gulfcouncil.org/fishery-management-2/amendments-under-development/.

Any vessel owner/operator with a permit issued by the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) is required to submit an electronic Vessel Trip Report (eVTR) to report all fish landed and discarded, regardless of species. NMFS published a final rule requiring reporting via eVTR for commercial and for-hire vessels with GARFO permits, which became effective in November 2021 (85 FR 71575, November 10, 2020). Vessel owners/operators reporting via eVTR have the option to choose between multiple electronic reporting applications, including GARFO's eVTR applications ( e.g., Fish Online), the Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System (SAFIS) electronic trip-level reporting (eTRIPS) Mobile and Online applications, and several applications offered by private companies, although not all reporting applications are approved for all regional permits.

Most non-HMS vessel owners/operators from Virginia through Maine use eVTRs to report their landings. The gear frequently reported via eVTR includes trawls, dredges, or gillnet gear, and these vessel owners/operators are primarily fishing for non-HMS such as scallops, squid, herring, groundfish, skates, and spiny dogfish. Owners/operators of vessels that have GARFO permits that require eVTR reporting, in addition to their HMS commercial limited access permits, must use the eVTR in addition to their Atlantic HMS logbook.

HMS vessel owners/operators submitting logbooks (50 CFR 635.5(a)(1)) must enter the required information on a day's fishing activities within 48 hours of completing that day's activities or before offloading, whichever is sooner, and they must submit the logbook form(s) postmarked within 7 days of offloading all HMS. GARFO permit holders must complete eVTRs to the extent possible prior to entering port and submit within 48 hours of offloading fish. Generally, SERO permit holders must submit fishing records to the SEFSC postmarked no later than 7 days after the end of each fishing trip.

NMFS is considering two suites of alternatives regarding implementation of a commercial electronic logbook to replace the existing paper commercial Atlantic HMS logbook and the Coastal Fisheries logbook. Alternative A1 addresses the format for submission of logbooks and associated weighout slips. Alternative A2 addresses the timing requirement for logbook submission. Sub-alternatives under these alternatives are described below.

NMFS is proposing, under the preferred Sub-alternative A1b, to require owners/operators of vessels with HMS commercial limited access permits ( i.e., Atlantic Tunas Longline category, shark directed, shark incidental, swordfish directed, swordfish incidental, and swordfish handgear) to complete and submit logbook reports electronically under the SEFSC Commercial Electronic Logbook through an electronic system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting. The data elements/information collected under the SEFSC Commercial Electronic Logbook would remain the same as the status quo, but the questions/prompts for the information may vary depending on the electronic reporting system/application the vessel owner/operator is using. In addition, the level of detail for certain required data/information may vary based, in part, on the gear type used. In general, relevant set level reporting would include the specific latitude and longitude coordinates at which gear was set and hauled back, the amount of gear used, and the number and species of fish kept, released alive, and discarded dead, and protected species interactions. Vessel owners/operators would be required to provide information on the trip itself, such as the start and end dates, the vessel name and identification number, which dealers purchased landings, and port information.

Under preferred Sub-alternative A1b, the current requirement for weighout slips (50 CFR 635.5(a)(2)) would not change except for how they are submitted to NMFS. Rather than being mailed in, the weighout slips would be submitted electronically with the logbook as an uploaded file. NMFS would develop an optional standardized weighout slip form which vessel owners/operators could choose to utilize in submitting the required weighout information with their electronic logbook. Note that under preferred Alternative D2 described below, NMFS is also proposing that dealers be required to report individual carcass weights for additional species. Should NMFS finalize such data collection from both vessel weighout slips and dealers, NMFS may evaluate whether sufficient information is being collected via dealer reporting to enable the discontinuation of collecting individual carcass weights on vessel weighout slips at some point in the future. Any such change would be considered in a future rulemaking.

Under this preferred sub-alternative, no change would be made to selection of vessel owners with HMS commercial limited access permits to complete the cost-earnings portion of the logbook and the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Annual Expenditures form(s) (50 CFR 635.5(a)(1)).

Under this preferred sub-alternative, electronic submission of logbooks could allow for “One Stop Reporting” for vessel owners/operators that hold some combination of HMS commercial limited access permits, SERO permits, and/or GARFO permits. Electronic submission, including for weighout slips, also reduces the administrative burden on NMFS for logbook processing. Potentially discontinuing the collection of individual carcass weights via a weighout slip would shift that reporting responsibility from vessel owners/operators to dealers.

In addition to preferred Sub-alternative A1b, in the RIR and IRFA for this action, NMFS also described and analyzed one other sub-alternative regarding the format for submission of logbooks and associated weighout slips. Under the status quo Sub-alternative A1a, owners/operators of vessels with HMS commercial limited access permits would continue to be required to report their fishing activities in a paper logbook and to mail in weighout slips (50 CFR 635.5(a)(1) and (2)). For the logbook, they would continue to report via submission of paper forms in either the Atlantic HMS logbook or the Coastal Fisheries logbook. Vessel owners/operators that hold HMS permits and GARFO permits would continue to report via eVTR as well as on paper.

NMFS is proposing, under preferred Sub-alternative A2b, to require vessel owners/operators to submit completed electronic logbook reports within 7 days of offloading all HMS. This sub-alternative would remove the current HMS requirement to enter information into the logbook within 48 hours of completing that day's activities or before offloading, whichever is sooner (50 CFR 635.5(a)(1)). However, communications with vessel owners/operators would still encourage them to complete logbooks as soon as possible to reduce recall error. If a vessel owner is selected by NMFS to complete the cost-earnings portion of the logbook, the owner or operator must likewise submit the cost-earnings portion of the logbook included in the electronic submission of the logbook, within 7 days of offloading all HMS. The requirement for submission of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Annual Expenditures form(s) for selected vessel owners would not change from the status quo (50 CFR 635.5(a)(1)).

The 7-day reporting requirement would be consistent with the status quo timing requirement for submission of logbooks in the HMS regulations as well as with the timing requirement for submission of commercial logbooks by SERO permit holders. The 7-day reporting requirement would be less restrictive than the 48-hour GARFO eVTR submission requirement, and less restrictive than the 24-hour requirement under preferred Sub-alternative B2a below for logbook submission by owners/operators of vessels with Atlantic Tunas General category permits, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permits, Swordfish General Commercial permits, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permits, which aligns with the current 24-hour catch reporting requirement for those vessels. Vessel owners/operators that hold both HMS commercial limited access permits and GARFO permits would continue to follow the 48-hour eVTR submission requirement for GARFO permit holders.

While NMFS would, through communications with vessels, continue to encourage vessel owners/operators to complete logbooks as soon as possible, removing the HMS 48-hour logbook information entry requirement from the regulations would simplify reporting by having a single deadline to complete and submit HMS logbook reports, and would also better match current practices of vessel owners/operators.

Additionally, requiring logbook submission on a longer timeframe ( i.e., within 7 days, as compared to within 24 or 48 hours) gives more flexibility to vessel owners/operators to complete reports when they have the opportunity. A longer timeframe also allows vessel owner/operators time to receive information they may need from dealers or others, for example, weighout slips. Giving a longer timeframe for submission also allows vessel owners/operators time to seek assistance they may need in completing their logbooks, for example, from customer service associated with electronic logbooks, or language assistance from community groups ( e.g., Vietnamese and Spanish community groups). However, allowing a longer timeframe for logbook submission may increase recall error, decrease the accuracy of information, and may not allow NMFS to receive and analyze data in a timely manner.

In addition to preferred Sub-alternative A2b, in the RIR and IRFA for this action, NMFS also described and analyzed three other sub-alternatives regarding timing of logbook submission. Sub-alternative A2a is the status quo alternative for timing of logbook submission. HMS vessel owners/operators submitting logbooks would enter the required information on a day's fishing activities within 48 hours of completing that day's activities or before offloading, whichever is sooner. The vessel owner/operator would submit the logbook report within 7 days of offloading all HMS. If a vessel owner is selected by NMFS to complete the cost-earnings portion of the logbook, the owner or operator must maintain and submit the cost-earnings portion of the logbook no later than 30 days after completing offloading for each fishing trip during that calendar year and submit the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Annual Expenditures form(s) no later than the date specified on the form of the following year (50 CFR 635.5(a)(1)).

Under Sub-alternative A2c, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed logbook reports within 48 hours of offloading all HMS, including the cost-earnings portion of the logbook for selected vessel owners. Under Sub-alternative A2d, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed logbook reports within 24 hours of offloading all HMS, including the cost-earnings portion of the logbook for selected vessel owners. Under both of these sub-alternatives, the requirement for submission of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Annual Expenditures form(s) by selected vessel owners would not change from the status quo.

Currently, vessel owners/operators with Atlantic Tunas General or Harpoon category permits must call in or electronically report all bluefin tuna landings and dead discards to NMFS within 24 hours of completing a trip (50 CFR 635.5(a)(4)). Owners/operators of HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels must call in or electronically report all bluefin tuna landings and dead discards, all non-tournament landings of Atlantic blue marlin, Atlantic white marlin, roundscale spearfish, and Atlantic sailfish, and all non-tournament and non-commercial landings of North Atlantic swordfish to NMFS within 24 hours of completing a trip (50 CFR 635.5(a)(4), (c)(1), and (c)(2)). These catch reports can be submitted via the HMS Permits website, an HMS Catch Reporting smartphone application, a telephone number designated by NMFS, or by other means as specified by NMFS. For telephone landing reports, the owner, or the owner's designee, must provide a contact phone number so that a NMFS representative can call the vessel owner, or the owner's designee, for follow up questions and to confirm the reported landing. Regardless of how they are submitted, billfish and swordfish landing reports submitted to NMFS are not complete unless the vessel owner, or the owner's designee, has received a confirmation number from NMFS or a NMFS representative.

Currently, owners/operators of vessels with Atlantic Tunas General category permits, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permits, Swordfish General Commercial permits, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permits are only required to maintain and submit paper logbook reports, and report cost and earnings information, if selected to report in the Atlantic HMS logbook (50 CFR 635.5(a)(1)). However, this requirement has not been exercised by NMFS for these sectors on an annual basis due to the large number of vessel owners that hold these open access permits ( i.e., 7,043 vessel owners in 2022) compared to vessel owners that hold commercial limited access permits ( i.e., 225 vessel owners in 2022) and the prohibitively large additional administrative burden that paper logbook reporting would place on the current Atlantic HMS logbook program. Additionally, until the recent implementation of for-hire logbook reporting in many fisheries, as described below, the Agency ( i.e., the National Marine Fisheries Service or NMFS) standard was to monitor these fisheries through surveys like the Large Pelagics Survey (LPS) and Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) surveys, described below, and through catch reporting. NMFS has instead selected vessel owners in these sectors to participate in one-time logbook studies. In 2013, NMFS executed a logbook study to collect cost and earnings data on charter vessel and headboat trips targeting HMS, and a similar study of the Atlantic Tunas General category was conducted in 2018.

Owners/operators of vessels with Swordfish General Commercial permits do not currently complete catch or logbook reporting unless they also hold an Atlantic Tunas General or Harpoon category permit, or a GARFO permit, with associated reporting requirements. Note that the majority of Swordfish General Commercial permits are combined with an Atlantic Tunas General category or Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permit and thus must follow applicable requirements for those other permits.

Owners/operators of Atlantic Tunas General category, HMS Charter/Headboat, and HMS Angling permitted vessels are all required, as a condition of their permit, to cooperate with the LPS if selected for reporting (50 CFR 635.5(f)). The LPS collects information regarding the rod and reel fishery directed at large pelagic species ( e.g., tunas, billfishes, swordfish, sharks, wahoo, dolphin, greater amberjack) in the offshore waters from Maine through Virginia from June through October. The purpose of the LPS is to collect more precise estimates of fishing effort and catch for large pelagic species that are rarely encountered in the general MRIP surveys. The LPS includes three independent surveys: (1) the Large Pelagics Telephone Survey (LPTS), a phone survey that collects fishing effort data from randomly selected vessel owners with Atlantic Tunas General category (as well as HMS Angling permits); (2) the LPS Add-on to the For-Hire Survey (FHS), which collects effort data from randomly selected HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels; and (3) the Large Pelagics Intercept Survey (LPIS), a dockside survey of known offshore fishing access sites, which collects catch data from both Atlantic Tunas General and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels (as well as HMS Angling). These surveys provide effort and average catch-per-trip estimates needed to estimate total catch by species.

Unlike vessel owners with Atlantic Tunas General category permits, owners of HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels report their effort data to the FHS, rather than the LPTS, to avoid duplicate reporting burden, as most HMS Charter/Headboat vessels also participate in Council-managed for-hire fisheries, which are monitored by the FHS. An extra series of questions called “the LPS Add-on” is asked of vessels that report fishing for HMS to collect HMS specific data that is needed for LPS effort and catch estimation. Similar to the LPTS, the FHS is also a telephone survey.

Any vessel owner/operator with a permit issued by GARFO is required to submit an eVTR to report all fish kept and discarded, regardless of species or location of fishing, within 48 hours of completing a trip. Most non-HMS commercial and for-hire vessel owners/operators from Virginia through Maine use eVTRs to report their landings. Unlike the Atlantic HMS logbook and the Coastal Fisheries logbook, the eVTR is used by GARFO permitted commercial vessel owners/operators and by for-hire charter/headboat vessel owners/operators. Since March 2018, vessel trip reports are required by all vessels in Mid-Atlantic fisheries possessing their regional for-hire permits. Similar logbook reporting requirements were implemented in New England for-hire fisheries in November 2021.

GARFO eVTRs include trip-level information, gear information, location by both grid and latitude and longitude coordinates, and, for commercial trips, the weight of each species kept or discarded. There is no indication of whether the discards are alive or dead. An entry must be filled out when the vessel owner/operator moves to a new area or uses a different gear.

From 2000 through 2015, vessel owners/operators reporting via GARFO VTR were required to submit a monthly no-fishing report if they did not fish. These no-fishing reports are no longer required by GARFO. The final rule stated that NMFS no longer needed no-fishing reports in those fisheries due to improved trip-level matching and, therefore, removed the requirement to simplify the regulations and reduce reporting burdens for the industry (80 FR 51754, August 26, 2015).

The Southeast Regional Headboat Survey (SRHS) began requiring electronic submission in 2013. In January 2021, electronic logbook reporting requirements were implemented for South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico for-hire vessels not covered by the SRHS reporting requirement. On February 23, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit set aside the final rule (85 FR 44005, July 21, 2020) implementing the Southeast For-Hire Integrated Electronic Reporting (SEFHIER) program in the Gulf of Mexico. This means the SEFHIER program for the Gulf of Mexico is currently not in effect; all other for-hire reporting programs in the Gulf of Mexico remain in effect ( e.g., SRHS and HMS Charter/Headboat catch reporting). The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council convened an Ad hoc Charter For-hire Data Collection Advisory Panel beginning in 2024, charged with, among other things, providing Gulf-wide stakeholder insight on the development of a new electronic data collection program for the federally permitted charter vessel and headboat components. The report of the first meeting of the Ad hoc Charter For-hire Data Collection Advisory Panel can be found at: https://gulfcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/AdHocCharterForHireAP_meeting-summary_1_16_24.pdf. Information on development of an FMP amendment can be found at: https://gulfcouncil.org/fishery-management-2/amendments-under-development/.

South Atlantic federally permitted for-hire permit holders are required to submit electronic logbooks weekly and are required to submit reports for each trip that include details on fishing effort, catch, including fish retained and released for all species, and economic information. South Atlantic federally permitted for-hire permit holders must submit a no-fishing report on weeks when no for-hire fishing activity takes place. Headboat owners in the South Atlantic and Gulf reporting to the SRHS submit reports on a weekly basis.

For-hire vessels have the option to choose between multiple electronic reporting applications, including GARFO's eVTR applications ( e.g., Fish Online), the Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System (SAFIS) electronic trip-level reporting (eTRIPS) Mobile and Online applications, and several applications offered by private companies, although not all reporting applications are approved for all regional permits. Currently, data elements necessary to meet HMS catch reporting requirements for recreational landings of bluefin tuna, billfish, and swordfish have been integrated into eTRIPS Mobile and eTRIPS Online software applications. The eTRIPS Mobile application allows for “One Stop Reporting” capabilities (outside of the SRHS).

NMFS is considering three suites of alternatives regarding implementation of an electronic logbook requirement for vessel owners/operators that hold an Atlantic Tunas General category permit, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permit, Swordfish General Commercial permit, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permit. Alternative B1 addresses electronic logbook requirements for these permit categories. Alternative B2 addresses the timing requirement for electronic logbook submission. Alternative B3 addresses cost and earnings information. Sub-alternatives under these alternatives are described below.

NMFS is proposing, under preferred Sub-alternative B1c, to expand species and trip reporting requirements via electronic logbook for vessel owners/operators with Atlantic Tunas General category, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category, Swordfish General Commercial, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permits. Vessel owners/operators would report through an electronic system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting. Similar to the paper commercial Atlantic HMS logbook, the electronic logbook under this sub-alternative would require reporting on all trips, regardless of whether fish were caught, and would collect information on all species, not only on HMS. Accordingly, electronic logbook information collection would include reporting of the number and species of all fish kept/landed, discarded dead, and released alive. As with the Atlantic HMS logbook, Coastal Fisheries logbook, and the GARFO eVTR, this electronic logbook program would also collect information on fishing location, such as latitude and longitude coordinates associated with primary fishing location. This electronic logbook program would require no-fishing reports on a monthly basis for months in which no fishing activity took place.

Electronic logbook reporting under preferred Sub-alternative B1c would be for all trips, including trips taken by an Atlantic Tunas General category, Swordfish General Commercial, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessel when participating in a tournament. Vessel owners/operators would indicate in the logbook which trips were associated with a tournament.

Implementation of an electronic logbook program would place additional burden on vessel owners/operators, as well as additional administrative burden on NMFS (although less administrative burden than implementing a paper logbook program). However, the electronic logbook program would have a number of benefits and is expected to improve conservation and management, as described below.

Currently, vessel owners/operators in these sectors are only reporting catches of certain HMS, as described above. Limiting reporting to only certain HMS allows other species to be caught but not reported. This limited reporting could reduce future management effectiveness, as events such as HMS range expansion, shark or other predator depredation, or developing fisheries for HMS, would be overlooked in the data system. This would hinder NMFS' ability to modify managed species in response to environmental, social, or economic changes that may occur in the future. Only reporting some species may also undermine efforts by NMFS to fully understand fishing operations, and the ability to assess the impacts of potential management actions.

Further, electronic logbook data would enable near real-time monitoring of catch, which can lead to more effective application of seasonal closures and retention limit changes that occur during fishing seasons. This data collection would also facilitate the development of new indicators of relative abundance for Atlantic tunas and improve the precision of existing indicators. For example, reporting all trips would provide the necessary information to determine catch-per-unit-effort in the bluefin tuna fishery, or other tuna fisheries, for the gear types fished with these permits. The electronic logbook program would allow NMFS to report more detailed effort and catch data to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which could potentially contribute to improved stock assessments and management strategy evaluation (MSE) that determines total allowable catch levels and inform quota allocation and other conservation and management decisions. Information on the spatial and temporal distributions of fish and fishing effort from electronic vessel reporting would facilitate efforts to understand the efficacy of fishing regulations and evaluate alternative management actions. Collection of information on primary fishing location would also facilitate numerous analyses regarding the distribution of these fisheries. Such information could help inform stock assessments, economic analyses, impact assessments for offshore developments such as offshore wind and aquaculture, impacts of marine monuments, management decisions related to climate impacts, or other changes in spatial management.

The requirement to submit no-fishing reports on a monthly basis for months in which no fishing activity took place would be similar to what is currently required for the commercial paper Atlantic HMS logbook (see 50 CFR 635.5(a)(1)). The SEFHIER program in the South Atlantic requires no-fishing reports on a weekly basis. GARFO permit holders are not required to submit no-fishing reports. No-fishing reports are a significant aid for facilitating regular compliance checks, as it is difficult to ascertain if a lack of reports over a given time period was due to non-compliance or the simple absence of fishing effort. No-fishing reports are especially important in instances where there are no corresponding dealer reports and no pre-trip notifications, such as for vessels with HMS Charter/Headboat permits on non-commercial trips.

Submitting all required reports is currently a requirement in order to renew any HMS permit (see 50 CFR 635.4(m)). In order to renew an HMS limited access permit, NMFS confirms the vessel owner's compliance with all logbook requirements. The same reporting compliance check is difficult to undertake for vessel owners renewing HMS open access permits ( e.g., Atlantic Tunas General category, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category, Swordfish General Commercial, HMS Charter/Headboat), because there is no mandatory, comprehensive logbook requirement. The requirement to submit no-fishing reports would also contribute to NMFS' ability to carry out compliance checks in consideration of issuing permits. These compliance checks are not currently done for open access permit renewals because, in the absence of a logbook program that includes reporting on every trip and no-fishing reports, there would not be a way to routinely determine whether vessel owners were not reporting, not fishing, or fishing but not catching HMS.

Regarding the relationship between an electronic logbook program and fishing surveys, a logbook program would have the benefit of providing more detailed effort and catch data than what are currently collected by the LPS. Following a period of overlapping data collection to facilitate calibration of the catch data time series, this logbook could allow owners/operators of Atlantic Tunas General category permitted vessels to be exempted from participation in the LPTS and minimize their participation in the dockside LPIS to a simple validation survey. The latter may not even be needed for the General category as their commercial catch could also be validated with dealer landings data.

Effort data reported via an electronic logbook could be used to substitute for effort data that HMS Charter/Headboat vessel owners/operators would otherwise be required to report to the FHS. NMFS is already using eVTR data for this purpose to exempt for-hire vessels with Council permits from reporting to the FHS to minimize the redundant reporting burden. HMS Charter/Headboat vessel operators would need to participate in dockside surveys, such as through the LPIS or through the Access Point Angler Intercept Survey (APAIS), which could serve as a validation check for logbook reported data. A proposal has already been put forward by the Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program for MRIP certification to use the APAIS as a validation survey of for-hire logbook data collected in the Atlantic.

The requirement to report on all trips, regardless of whether fish were caught, and to report all species, would be consistent with the current commercial Atlantic HMS logbook and with requirements for GARFO commercial and for-hire permit holders and SERO South Atlantic for-hire permit holders.

In addition to preferred Sub-alternative B1c, in the RIR and IRFA for this action, NMFS also described and analyzed two other sub-alternatives regarding reporting requirements for vessel owners/operators that hold an Atlantic Tunas General category permit, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permit, Swordfish General Commercial permit, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permit. Sub-alternative B1a is the status quo alternative for catch reporting for these permits. NMFS would maintain existing electronic catch reporting for vessel owners/operators with Atlantic Tunas General and Harpoon category permits through an electronic system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting (currently, the HMS Permits website or the HMS Catch Reporting smartphone application) or reporting via telephone. NMFS would require reporting of bluefin tuna landings and dead discards only, and vessel owners/operators would only report on trips where bluefin tuna are caught. NMFS would also maintain existing electronic reporting for owners/operators of HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels through an electronic system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting (currently, the HMS Permits website or the HMS Catch Reporting smartphone application), reporting via telephone, or by other means as specified by NMFS (currently eTRIPS and State catch cards). Owners/operators of HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels would report all bluefin tuna landings and dead discards, all non-tournament landings of Atlantic blue marlin, Atlantic white marlin, roundscale spearfish, and Atlantic sailfish, and all non-tournament and non-commercial landings of North Atlantic swordfish. Sub-alternative B1b would be the same as Sub-alternative B1a with the exception of removing the option to report via telephone.

Alternative B2 only applies if implementing an electronic logbook under preferred Sub-alternative B1c above. The following sub-alternatives consider the timing requirement for submission of an electronic logbook.

NMFS is proposing, under preferred Sub-alternative B2a, to require vessel owners/operators with Atlantic Tunas General category, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category, Swordfish General Commercial, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permits to submit completed electronic logbooks within 24 hours of the end of a trip. This sub-alternative would maintain the 24-hour catch reporting requirement that vessel owners/operators currently follow but would expand the amount of information they may be submitting after each trip.

Requiring logbook submission within 24 hours would allow NMFS to receive and analyze data in the shortest timeframe (compared to 48 hours or 7 days). In addition, it could improve some aspects of data quality and accuracy by reducing recall bias and reducing uncertainty associated with these data when used in science or management applications. It could also expedite data availability for fisheries management purposes. Apart from considerations for other fisheries, reporting within 24 hours facilitates faster management actions ( e.g., inseason closures, retention limit changes, etc.) in response to the availability of bluefin tuna on fishing grounds. This preferred sub-alternative would maintain the 24-hour reporting deadline for bluefin tuna while providing for a single timing requirement for all logbook submissions. Having more than one reporting deadline under this logbook would make the regulations more complex both for vessel owners/operators and for enforcement.

However, a 24-hour timeframe to report may result in vessel owners/operators having to go back and update reports with ancillary information more frequently than if they had longer to report. Requiring logbook submission on a longer timeframe ( i.e., longer than 24 hours), on the other hand, gives more flexibility to vessel owners/operators to find time to complete reports. Giving a longer timeframe for submission also allows vessel owners/operators time to seek assistance they may need in completing their logbooks, for example, from customer service associated with electronic logbooks, or language assistance from community groups. For completion of this proposed electronic logbook however, extra time beyond 24 hours for flexibility and assistance may not be needed because trips taken by these vessels are typically shorter and with much less catch compared to vessels with HMS commercial limited access permits, and therefore reporting is expected to be less complex and take less time.

Some GARFO and SERO South Atlantic for-hire vessel owners/operators possess HMS Charter/Headboat permits in case of incidental HMS catch. Given that preferred Sub-alternative B2a would be more restrictive than the reporting requirements for GARFO commercial or for-hire permit holders, or for SERO South Atlantic for-hire permit holders, these permit holders may decide to drop their HMS permits to avoid the extra reporting burden. While losing these permit holders and their data could have some minor negative effects on NMFS' ability to monitor HMS fisheries in a timely manner, it is more likely that permit holders who drop their HMS permits were not fishing for HMS. Any negative effects would be offset by the positive effects of having more timely data on all species caught by owners/operators who actively fish for HMS.

In addition to preferred Sub-alternative B2a, in the RIR and IRFA for this action, NMFS also described and analyzed three other sub-alternatives regarding timing of electronic logbook submission. Under Sub-alternative B2b, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed electronic logbooks within 48 hours of the end of a trip. Under Sub-alternative B2c, for trips with bluefin tuna landings or dead discards, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed electronic logbooks within 24 hours of the end of a trip. For trips with no bluefin tuna landings or dead discards, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed electronic logbooks within 48 hours of the end of a trip. Under Sub-alternative B2d, for trips with bluefin tuna landings or dead discards, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed electronic logbooks within 24 hours of the end of a trip. For trips with no bluefin tuna landings or dead discards, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed electronic logbooks within 7 days of the end of a trip.

NMFS is proposing, under preferred Sub-alternative B3c, to require all vessel owners/operators with Atlantic Tunas General category, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category, Swordfish General Commercial, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permits to submit cost and earnings information for each trip through the completion of a cost-earnings portion in the electronic logbook. This requirement would follow the timing implemented under Alternative B2 in order to maintain one timeline for reporting and facilitate compliance monitoring. Examples of cost information collected in the electronic logbook could include, but are not limited to, fuel, bait, ice, groceries, and payouts to crew and captains. Earnings information collected in the electronic logbook could include trip sales or trip fare.

Additionally, under this preferred sub-alternative, vessel owners/operators would be selected by NMFS to submit additional cost and earnings information via an annual survey. NMFS would likely select no more than 20 percent of vessel owners/operators, similar to the current selection percentage for cost and earnings reporting under the logbook for vessel owners/operators with HMS commercial limited access permits. This selection rate should provide NMFS with a representative sample of the HMS fishery as a whole. Examples of expenditures collected in the additional annual survey could include, but are not limited to, repair and maintenance expenses, fishing supplies, drydock expenses, equipment costs, insurance, boat dockage, fishing licenses and permits, vessel boat loan payments, relocation expenses, business taxes, and office expenses.

Reporting cost and earnings information on all trips would be consistent with the electronic reporting requirements for vessel owner/operators with Federal for-hire permits in the South Atlantic. Detailed economic data, collected in real time, would enhance NMFS' ability to understand how these sectors are impacted when regulatory change is considered. These data would be used in cost-benefit and economic impact analyses for actions and amendments that propose regulatory changes. Additionally, improved characterization of costs and earnings for these sectors would allow NMFS to better monitor the economic health of the industry over time and facilitate economic recovery from fishery disasters. For efficiency and to ease reporting burden, some of these data may be collected by a sample of the fleet via an additional annual survey ( e.g., boat payments, equipment costs, insurance), as is proposed here. However, if preferred Sub-alternative B2a is implemented, collecting cost and earnings information for each trip would add to the information that vessel owners/operators would need to report within 24 hours after a trip.

In addition to preferred Sub-alternative B3c, in the RIR and IRFA for this action, NMFS also described and analyzed two other sub-alternatives regarding cost and earnings information. Sub-alternative B3a is the status quo alternative for collection of cost and earnings information. The existing regulation at § 635.5(a)(1) states that NMFS may select the owner of an HMS charter/headboat vessel, Atlantic tunas vessel, or swordfish vessel, among others, to report in a logbook and complete the cost and earnings portion of the logbook. Vessel owners/operators are currently required to report cost and earnings information for each trip within 30 days, if selected by NMFS for that calendar year. Selected vessel owners/operators would also submit annual expenditure information. This status quo requirement to report in logbooks, including completion of the cost-earnings portion, although in the regulations, has not been exercised by NMFS on a regular basis for vessel owners with open access commercial or HMS Charter/Headboat permits, as described above. In contrast, cost and earnings information is regularly collected from vessel owners with HMS commercial limited access permits as described under the A alternatives above. Under Sub-alternative B3b, vessel owners/operators selected by NMFS for a given calendar year would submit cost and earnings information only via an annual survey, rather than through post-trip logbook submissions. An annual survey would include questions on the costs and earnings for a typical trip but would not provide as complete data as if all vessel owners/operators were reporting some information on every trip.

Currently, HMS Angling permitted vessels must report all bluefin tuna landings and dead discards, as well as all non-tournament landings of Atlantic blue marlin, Atlantic white marlin, roundscale spearfish, Atlantic sailfish, and North Atlantic swordfish to NMFS within 24 hours of the landing (50 CFR 635.5(c)). These catch reports can be electronically submitted via the HMS Permits website or an HMS Catch Reporting smartphone application, a telephone number designated by NMFS, or by other means as specified by NMFS. For telephone landing reports, the owner, or the owner's designee, must provide a contact phone number so that a NMFS representative can call the vessel owner, or the owner's designee, for follow up questions and to confirm the reported landing. Regardless of how catch reports are submitted, billfish and swordfish landing reports submitted to NMFS are not complete unless the vessel owner, or the owner's designee, has received a confirmation number from NMFS or a NMFS representative (50 CFR 635.5(c)(2)).

NMFS is considering four alternatives regarding reporting requirements for vessel owners with an HMS Angling permit, as described below.

NMFS is proposing, under preferred Alternative C2, to largely maintain the status quo reporting requirements, with the exception of removing the option to report via telephone. Vessel owners with HMS Angling permits would be required to report all bluefin tuna landings and dead discards, and non-tournament landings of billfish and swordfish. These catch reports can be submitted through an electronic system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting (currently, the HMS Permits website or the HMS Catch Reporting smartphone application).

Removing telephone reporting would modernize and streamline the reporting system. Additionally, this switch would relieve the Agency of the administrative time and cost of receiving and returning phone calls and voicemails. While there may be individuals who prefer to report via telephone and would need to change their current practices to report electronically, most reports are currently received using the website or smartphone application. For example, in 2022, over 90 percent of reports were submitted via electronic reporting system.

In addition to preferred Alternative C2, in the RIR and IRFA for this action, NMFS also described and analyzed three other alternatives regarding reporting requirements for vessel owners with an HMS Angling permit. Alternative C1 is the status quo alternative under which vessel owners would be required to report all bluefin tuna, billfish, and swordfish landings and bluefin tuna dead discards (50 CFR 635.5(c)). These catch reports can be submitted through an electronic system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting (currently, the HMS Permits website or the HMS Catch Reporting smartphone application), a telephone number designated by NMFS, or by other means as specified by NMFS. Alternative C3 would require the owner of an HMS Angling permitted vessel to report all pelagic shark ( i.e., blue, porbeagle, common thresher, and, if and when allowed, shortfin mako sharks) landings, in addition to the status quo. Alternative C4 would require the owner of an HMS Angling permitted vessel to report all BAYS tunas landings, in addition to the status quo. Both of these alternatives would result in more comprehensive reporting of species landed in the HMS recreational sector compared to the status quo, including additional species that are reported to ICCAT. However, these additional species would likely increase reporting complexity, increase the time burden associated with reporting, and potentially increase the frequency of reporting. Management needs for such detailed reporting may be premature considering the additional reporting burden.

Landing weight and price for most HMS are collected from dealer reports submitted electronically from dealers residing in Maine through Texas, including the U.S. Caribbean. All HMS dealer reports are submitted on an individual trip basis, with dealers providing information on the weight and price of HMS purchased from U.S. fishing vessels (50 CFR 635.5(b)). In some cases, mostly for ICCAT-managed species such as swordfish and tunas, dealers may report the weight and price information for each individual fish instead of an aggregate weight for a given species. In the case of bluefin tuna, dealers are currently required to report individual fish weights.

As a quality control measure, NMFS regularly cross-validates the weight of fish and the purchase dates provided in dealer reports with vessel logbook trip information, including the weighout slips, to ensure all fish are accounted for in these fisheries that are required to submit this information. Where available, when discrepancies are found between the dealer reports, logbook, and weighout slips, NMFS works to ensure the fish are correctly entered in the appropriate dealer reporting system and in the logbook. Similarly, for bluefin tuna, information in the dealer landings dataset is compared to the open access vessel catch report dataset for quality assurance.

Currently, dealers with Atlantic tunas dealer permits must submit a complete bi-weekly report on forms available from NMFS for bluefin tuna received from U.S. vessels (50 CFR 635.5(b)(2)(i)(B)). For bluefin tuna received from U.S. vessels on the 1st through the 15th of each month, the dealer must submit the bi-weekly report form to NMFS, to be received by NMFS, no later than the 25th of that month. Reports of bluefin tuna received on the 16th through the last day of each month must be received by NMFS no later than the 10th of the following month.

NMFS is considering four alternatives regarding individual fish reports by HMS dealers and/or bluefin tuna reporting requirements, with two preferred, as described below.

NMFS is proposing, under preferred Alternative D2, to require Federal HMS dealers to report individual fish weights for BAYS tunas, swordfish, and pelagic sharks listed under heading C of Table 1 of appendix A to this part ( i.e., blue, porbeagle, common thresher, and, if and when allowed, shortfin mako sharks), in addition to bluefin tuna on their dealer reports.

Currently, dealers have flexibility to report according to their business practices, so some reports are at the individual fish level and some reports are at the aggregate weight level for fish that are all of the same species, quality, and price. Most non-bluefin tuna dealer reports provide an aggregate species weight instead of an individual weight for each fish. Dealer reports also include varying specificity in gear type information. In addition to dealer reports, currently, dealers typically generate individual fish weight information on weighout slips and share that information with vessel owners/operators. Vessel owners/operators required to report in the Atlantic HMS logbook, in turn, submit the weighout slips with their logbook submissions, where it is associated with the gear type utilized and other information in their logbook report. The submitted individual fish weight information currently covers the HMS gear types that report in the Atlantic HMS logbook, i.e., primarily vessels using pelagic longline gear or other gears targeting swordfish and tunas, and this information is currently used in ICCAT stock assessments and economic analyses. However, current size samples (for species other than bluefin tuna) from HMS fisheries are not representative of all HMS catches because not all HMS fisheries occurring in all geographic ranges ( e.g., fisheries pursued under HMS open access permits) are required to report individual fish size of their catches. Requiring HMS dealers to report individual carcass weights for BAYS tunas, swordfish, and pelagic sharks expands data available for use in stock assessments, which could result in reducing the uncertainty of the assessment results. It also expands data available to estimate revenue for economic analyses of these fisheries.

State of the art stock assessment models, including those utilized by ICCAT, use individual fish size (size samples) as part of the necessary input data. Size samples from different fisheries that are representative of the catches are important to reduce the uncertainty in stock assessment results. Age structure models also required that the size samples be expanded to create a size distribution of the entire catch ( i.e., catch-at-size). Scientists also use size samples to estimate gear size selectivity ( i.e., the range of fish sizes caught by a particular gear). When size samples from a particular gear are not available, scientists have to mirror the size selectivity from another gear to the gear missing the size samples, and this could bias the stock assessment results. In addition, size samples allow scientists to identify strong recruitment or recruitment failure events.

The way individual fish weight data are used in stock assessments can be illustrated for bluefin tuna. Currently and for the past 45 years, HMS dealers and vessel owners/operators have been required to report individual carcass information for all commercially landed Atlantic bluefin tuna (electronic reporting has been required since 2016). Bluefin tuna are the only HMS that are tagged by dealers when landed, which provides the most precise way to identify individual fish across data streams. These requirements provided fishery scientists with unique high-quality data that contributed to the stock assessments of western Atlantic bluefin tuna. More specifically, since individual fish are reported by HMS vessel owners/operators and carcass weights of all commercially landed bluefin tuna were collected and reported by HMS dealers, scientists were not required to use a limited number of size samples to estimate the total catch-at-size of the landings. Therefore, the catch-at-size from bluefin tuna U.S. commercial landings was considered to be accurate. In addition, these data allowed ICCAT assessment scientists to estimate gear size selectivity for all of the U.S. bluefin tuna commercial fisheries without the need to apply any substitutions. This resulted in ICCAT stock assessment results with lower uncertainties. These size data were also used to monitor the 2003 strong year class and allowed ICCAT to develop management measures in part due to that strong year class, including a higher total allowable catch. Finally, the U.S. high quality data that are a result of the reporting of individual carcass weights were instrumental in the development and adoption by ICCAT of the first western Atlantic bluefin tuna MSE, which is considered a state of the art approach for the management of fish stocks.

Under preferred Sub-alternative B1c, NMFS would expand species and trip reporting requirements via electronic logbook for vessel owners/operators with Atlantic Tunas General category, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category, Swordfish General Commercial, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permits. This logbook would provide data for additional gear types that, taken together with individual fish weights through dealer reports, would approach the finer resolution of data that NMFS currently collects for bluefin tuna, to be used in stock assessments and other applications described above. Given that ICCAT stock assessments rely on fishery indices from individual countries, NMFS expects that finer resolution in the U.S. size frequency distributions will result in improved stock assessments for non-bluefin tuna fisheries overall, and thus better-informed ICCAT management measures in the future. Collecting individual fish weights through dealer reporting, in combination with logbook reporting for vessels with these permits, would also improve revenue estimates for economic analyses of these fisheries, for example, when analyzing economic impacts of spatial restrictions on fisheries.

As described under preferred Sub-alternative A1b, weighout slip submission would continue under the SEFSC Commercial Electronic Logbook. After collecting data from both vessel weighout slips and dealers, NMFS may consider in the future whether sufficient information is being collected via dealer reporting before deciding whether to discontinue collection of individual carcass weights on weighout slips.

Under preferred Alternative D4, Atlantic tunas dealers would no longer be required to submit a bi-weekly report for bluefin tuna. The information submitted via the bi-weekly report is already collected under other bluefin tuna reporting requirements at § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A). This preferred alternative would reduce the reporting burden for Atlantic tunas dealers and administrative burden on NMFS.

In addition to the above preferred alternatives, in the RIR and IRFA for this action, NMFS also described and analyzed two other alternatives regarding HMS dealer reporting requirements. Alternative D1 is the status quo alternative for Federal HMS dealer reporting. Currently, dealers are required to report individual fish weights only for bluefin tuna. For other species ( i.e., swordfish, BAYS tunas, sharks), dealers may report individual fish weights or they may report an aggregate weight for a given species. Currently, dealers with Atlantic tunas dealer permits must also submit a complete bi-weekly report on forms available from NMFS for bluefin tuna received from U.S. vessels.

Under Alternative D3, dealers buying fish landed from vessels whose owners/operators are submitting weighout slips with their logbook reporting ( i.e., owners/operators that report in the Atlantic HMS logbook, or that would report in the SEFSC Commercial Electronic Logbook under preferred Sub-alternative A1b) would not be required to report swordfish, BAYS tunas, and pelagic shark species individually on Federal dealer reports. Dealers would only be required to report these species individually, when buying fish landed from vessels whose owner/operators do not submit weighout slips ( i.e., owners/operators of vessels with an Atlantic Tunas General category permit, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permit, Swordfish General Commercial permit, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permit). Note that under this alternative, the Agency would need to maintain the weighout slip requirement for vessel owners/operators reporting in the SEFSC Commercial Electronic Logbook and the associated burden on the Agency to enter data received via weighout slip.

NMFS is proposing to restructure some paragraphs of the HMS reporting regulations in § 635.5, including modifying paragraph headings, to implement the above proposed regulatory changes and clarify the existing regulations. For example, NMFS is proposing to include all reporting requirements for owners/operators of vessels with HMS Charter/Headboat permits under § 635.5(a), rather than both § 635.5(a) and (c) as they are currently. NMFS is also proposing to move the existing chartering arrangement regulations at § 635.5(a)(5) to the more applicable section of the regulations under § 635.32(e).

NMFS is proposing to clarify some of the existing reporting regulations, including by stating that logbook reporting, currently under § 635.5(a)(1), includes the disposition of fish caught. NMFS would clarify which species need individual weights reported in the weighout slip, currently under § 635.5(a)(2). NMFS would clarify that § 635.5(a)(6) refers to vessel monitoring system (VMS) and individual bluefin tuna quota (IBQ) reporting requirements. In addition, NMFS would clarify that the requirement for dealers to inspect a vessel's permit applies to all HMS landings received by the dealer (under § 635.5(b)(1)(i)), and not only for bluefin tuna, and that, in both cases, dealers collect the vessel number rather than the permit number. NMFS would also adjust the deadline for modifying dealer reports under § 635.5(b)(1)(ii) from 30 days to 120 days after the report is submitted, in order to align with current practices as well as the operational deadline of other State and Federal dealer reporting programs. NMFS is proposing to clarify that the confirmation number required for recreational reporting (see 50 CFR 635.5(c)(2)) is required for bluefin tuna as well as swordfish and billfish and could also be a unique identifier for the report ( e.g., a vessel trip report number), as not all electronic reporting systems provide a confirmation number. NMFS would clarify that alternative recreational catch reporting methodologies under § 635.5(c)(3) include online reporting. NMFS is also proposing to add cross-references to § 635.5 that were missing from the prohibitions at § 635.71(a)(25) and (b)(26). Other proposed regulatory changes include updating cross-references to paragraphs of §§ 635.5 and 635.32 according to the restructured regulations mentioned above and using the abbreviation “BFT” for “bluefin tuna” to be consistent across regulations. These clarifications and corrections would improve the administration and enforcement of HMS regulations and are consistent with the intent of this action as well as previously analyzed and approved management measures.

NMFS is also proposing to remove vessel owners in the squid trawl fishery and vessel owners with Federal commercial smoothhound permits from potential logbook and cost-earnings reporting under § 635.5(a)(1) and (2). Consistent with the decision in Amendment 9 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, vessel owners with Federal commercial smoothhound permits have not been selected for HMS logbook reporting to date. Vessel owners in the squid trawl fishery report to GARFO as do vessel owners with Federal commercial smoothhound permits who also hold GARFO permits (approximately 60 percent). Catch data from these fisheries are also collected through dealer reporting. No longer referring to these permits will further clarify the intent of these regulations.

For consistency with the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act, Public Law 117-263 § 5946(b) signed into law on December 23, 2022, and as a clarification of current reporting practices, NMFS proposes to remove references to reporting shark fins separately from shark carcasses on weighout slips and dealer reports in the HMS regulations at §§ 635.5(a)(2) and (b)(1)(i) and 635.30(c)(3).

As mentioned above, there are several efforts underway regarding vessel and dealer reporting. One of the objectives of this proposed rule is to streamline HMS reporting for commercial and recreational fisheries consistent with the “One Stop Reporting” initiative for HMS, the Greater Atlantic Region, and the Southeast Region fisheries. To that end, this proposed rule was developed while maintaining consistency, to the extent practicable, with those efforts. In addition to this proposed rule, NMFS is currently developing a proposed rule to implement a joint South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council FMP amendment addressing electronic reporting for commercial vessels. That proposed rule would maintain reporting requirements for commercial vessels reporting through the Coastal Fisheries logbook but require electronic submission of reports using available software. More information on the joint FMP amendment can be found at: https://safmc.net/amendments/dolphin-wahoo-amendment-4/ and at: https:// gulfcouncil.org/fishery-management-2/amendments-under-development/.

Additionally, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is currently considering an FMP amendment on data collection for federally permitted for-hire vessels. More information on that effort can be found at: https://gulfcouncil.org/fishery-management-2/amendments-under-development/. NMFS would take the appropriate action to implement the amendment, which could include proposing any changes in a proposed rule, once the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council submits the FMP amendment to NMFS.

NMFS is requesting comments on this proposed rule, which may be submitted at: https://www.regulations.gov or at a public hearing. NMFS solicits comments on this action by January 6, 2025 (see DATES and ADDRESSES ).

Implementation of the measures proposed in this rulemaking is contingent on available funding. Implementation of some or all aspects of the preferred alternatives may be delayed pending funding availability and any needed development of, or changes to, electronic reporting systems/applications. In addition to comments on the alternatives themselves, should delayed implementation be necessary, NMFS is requesting comments on which alternatives the public feels are most important.

During the comment period, NMFS will hold three public hearings via webinars, as shown in table 1. Requests for sign language interpretation, interpretation to another language, or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carrie Soltanoff at carrie.soltanoff@noaa.gov or 301-427-8503, at least 7 days prior to the meeting. In addition, any requests for in-person public hearings during the comment period should be directed to Carrie Soltanoff at carrie.soltanoff@noaa.gov or 301-427-8503.

The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules ( e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room, attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak, each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak, and attendees should not interrupt one another). At the beginning of the webinar, the moderator will explain how the webinar will be conducted and how and when attendees can provide comments. The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they may be asked to leave the hearing or may not be allowed to speak during the webinar.

Pursuant to section 304(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NMFS has preliminarily determined that the action proposed falls within categorical exclusion Category A1, an action that is a technical correction or a change to a fishery management action or regulation, which does not result in a substantial change in any of the following: fishing location, timing, effort, authorized gear types, or harvest levels. This is a category of actions that does not normally have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, is not connected to a larger action, and does not involve extraordinary circumstances precluding use of the categorical exclusion. As such, NMFS has preliminarily determined that this action is categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to describe the reasons why the action is being considered. The purpose of this rulemaking is to: (1) streamline and modernize reporting for HMS through electronic reporting and consolidation of reporting deadlines, including converting existing commercial paper logbooks to electronic logbooks; (2) expand electronic logbook reporting to additional commercial and charter/headboat vessel owners; and (3) collect additional information from dealers through existing electronic reporting mechanisms.

Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires Agencies to state the objective of, and legal basis for the proposed action. The expansion of reporting requirements under this action would create consistency with Agency efforts in other fisheries and augment data necessary for fishery science and management. Electronic logbook reporting is a step towards streamlining HMS reporting for commercial, for-hire, and private recreational fisheries consistent with the “One Stop Reporting” initiative for HMS, Greater Atlantic Region, and Southeast Region fisheries. The intent of the “One Stop Reporting” initiative is to expand capabilities for the submission of a single electronic report to satisfy overlapping reporting requirements of vessels holding permits in multiple regions.

The legal basis for this proposed rule stems from the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must, consistent with ten National Standards, manage fisheries to maintain optimum yield (OY) by rebuilding overfished fisheries and preventing overfishing. This proposed rule is also consistent with ATCA, under which NMFS is authorized to promulgate regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out binding recommendations of ICCAT. Additionally, any management measures must be consistent with other domestic laws including NEPA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).

Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA requires agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) authorizes an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Pursuant to this process, NMFS issued a final rule that established a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 11411) for RFA compliance purposes (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015; effective on July 1, 2016). SBA has established size standards for all other major industry sectors in the United States, including the scenic and sightseeing transportation (water) sector (NAICS code 487210, for-hire), which includes charter/party boat entities. The SBA has defined a small charter/party boat entity as one with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $14.0 million. Atlantic HMS dealers can be classified as fish and seafood merchant wholesalers under NAICS code 424460. SBA has defined a small fish and seafood merchant wholesaler as any business that employs fewer than 100 employees.

NMFS considers all HMS commercial fishing permit holders to be small entities because they had average annual receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing. Commercial fishing for Atlantic HMS only generated just over $40 million in 2021. Of the vessels with HMS commercial limited access permits, no single pelagic longline vessel has exceeded $11 million in revenue in recent years. HMS bottom longline commercial fishing vessels typically earn less revenue than pelagic longline vessels and, thus, would also be considered small entities. None of the commercial fishing business owners reported having more than $11 million in gross receipts on the annual Federal permit application form for their limited access fishing permit renewal. SERO issued 802 HMS commercial fishing permits in 2022.

In addition, NMFS estimates 518 permitted dealers would also be impacted by this proposed rule based on an analysis of our various dealer permits. NMFS assumes that these dealers are all considered small entities based on our experience with these businesses and most employ far fewer than 100 employees.

In addition to the limited access fishing permits issued by SERO, the proposed rule would also potentially impact HMS open access permit holders issued via the Atlantic HMS Permit Shop at: https://hmspermits.noaa.gov/. In 2022, 4,259 HMS Charter/Headboat category permits were issued. NMFS is not aware of any HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders earning more than $14 million, so these businesses are also considered small entities.

There were also 2,757 Atlantic Tunas General category and Swordfish General Commercial permits (including Atlantic Tunas General category permits, Swordfish General Commercial permits, and permits that combine the two) and 27 Harpoon category permits issued in 2022. NMFS is not aware of any of these commercial fishing permit holders earning more than $11 million, so these businesses are also considered small entities.

This proposed rule would also impact HMS Angling permit holders, but those permit holders are considered individuals and not small entities under RFA.

NMFS has determined that the preferred alternatives would not likely directly affect any small organizations or small government jurisdictions defined under RFA, nor would there be disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities.

Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires agencies to describe any new reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements. Some preferred alternatives this proposed rule would result in reporting, record-keeping, and compliance requirements that require a modified Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) filing. This rule revises the existing requirements for three collections of information, including OMB Control Number 0648-0371 “Highly Migratory Species Vessel Logbooks and Cost-Earnings Data Reports,” 0648-0040 “Highly Migratory Species Dealer Reporting Family of Forms,” and 0648-0328 “Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Recreational Landings and Bluefin Tuna Catch Reports.”

This proposed rule would revise and extend the existing requirements under OMB Control Number 0648-0371 for owners/operators of vessels with HMS commercial limited access permits ( i.e., Atlantic Tunas Longline category, shark directed, shark incidental, swordfish directed, swordfish incidental, and swordfish handgear) to complete and submit logbook reports electronically under the SEFSC Commercial Electronic Logbook through an electronic system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting, where previously they have been required to submit a paper-based logbook. Additionally, rather than mailing in paper weighout slips, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit them electronically with the logbook as an uploaded file. NMFS would develop an optional standardized weighout slip form, which could be completed by HMS dealers for the vessel owners/operators.

We estimate 225 vessel owners/operators with HMS commercial limited access permits would complete 45 electronic trip/set reports, and 5 no-fishing/no catch reports each year with no additional recordkeeping or reporting costs, excluding labor costs. A subset of 45 vessel owners/operators with limited access permits would be selected for cost-earnings reporting which would require the electronic submission of an estimated 9 trip cost-earnings reports, and one annual expenditure report per year. Finally, we estimate a maximum of 540 HMS dealers would use the optional form provided by NMFS to generate 5 vessel weighout slips per year to be submitted by vessel owners/operators with electronic logbook requirements.

This proposed rule would also revise and extend the existing logbook reporting requirements under 0648-0371 for vessel owners/operators with open access Atlantic tunas and swordfish permits, including the Atlantic Tunas General or Harpoon category, Swordfish General Commercial, and HMS Charter/Headboat permits. Currently, these individuals are only required to maintain and submit paper logbook reports if selected to report in the Atlantic HMS logbook. Under this proposed rule, these permit holders would be required to report all trips, regardless of target species or whether fish were caught, through an electronic logbook system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting. Each trip report would also include trip-level cost-earnings reporting, and no-fishing reports would be required on a monthly basis for months in which no fishing activity took place. A sub-sample of permit holders would also be selected to complete an annual expenditure report. We estimate 7,043 vessel owners with open access Atlantic tunas, swordfish, or HMS Charter/Headboat permits would complete on average 46 trip reports and 4 no-fishing reports each year with no additional recordkeeping of reporting costs (excluding labor costs). A subset of likely no more than 1,409 vessel owners would be selected to complete an annual expenditure report.

This proposed rule would also revise and extend reporting requirements under 0648-0328 “Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Recreational Landings and Bluefin Tuna Catch Reports.” Currently, HMS Angling, HMS Charter/Headboat, and Atlantic Tunas General and Harpoon category permit holders are required to submit catch reports for bluefin tuna, billfish, and swordfish within 24 hours of landing them. There are several options for submitting these reports, including via an online reporting portal on the HMS Permits website, an HMS Catch Reporting mobile application, designated for-hire electronic logbook applications, two State HMS catch card programs, and a toll-free phone line. This proposed rule would eliminate the option to report via toll-free phone line, while continuing to allow reporting via the other reporting options for HMS Angling permit holders. Under this proposed rule, HMS Charter/Headboat, Atlantic Tunas General category, and Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permit holders would no longer be required to submit catch reports, as these data would be captured through their logbook reports.

This proposed rule would also revise and extend reporting requirements under 0648-0040, “Highly Migratory Species Dealer Reporting Family of Forms”, for federally permitted HMS dealers. Currently, HMS dealers are required to report individual fish weights for bluefin tuna but have the option to report aggregate weights for all other HMS-managed species. This rule proposes to expand the requirement for HMS dealers to report individual fish weights to BAYS tunas, swordfish, and pelagic sharks ( i.e., blue, porbeagle, common thresher, and, if and when allowed, shortfin mako sharks). We estimate 500 HMS dealers would submit 26 electronic landings reports per year. An additional 40 HMS dealers that use a “file upload” model of reporting would be estimated to submit 45 landings reports per year. Additionally, this rule proposes to eliminate the requirement for bluefin tuna dealers to submit bi-weekly landing and trade reports for bluefin tuna received from U.S. vessels as the information submitted via these reports is duplicated under other bluefin tuna reporting requirements.

Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, agencies must identify, to the extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other fishery management measures. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, MMPA, ESA, NEPA, PRA, and CZMA. This proposed action has been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules. As described under the objectives for this action, electronic logbook reporting is a step towards streamlining HMS reporting for commercial, for-hire, and private recreational fisheries consistent with the “One Stop Reporting,” the intent of which is to expand capabilities for the submission of a single electronic report to satisfy overlapping reporting requirements of vessels holding permits in multiple regions, consolidate reporting deadlines, and thus remove any duplicative reporting.

One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The analysis shall discuss significant alternatives such as: (1) establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. These categories of alternatives are described at 5 U.S.C. 603 (c)(1)-(4). NMFS examined each of these categories of alternatives. Regarding the first and fourth categories, NMFS cannot establish differing compliance or reporting requirements for small entities or exempt small entities from coverage of the rule or parts of it because all of the businesses impacted by this rule are considered small entities and thus the requirements are already designed for small entities. NMFS examined alternatives that fall under the second category, which requires agencies to consider whether they can clarify, consolidate, or simplify compliance and reporting requirements under the proposed rule for small entities. Many of the alternatives in this proposed rule are designed to implement electronic reporting, provide more flexibility by allowing for consolidated “One Stop Reporting,” and simplify reporting by eliminating some required reports. The use of a performance standard, the third category, to monitor catch and landings by itself is not practical. NMFS is allowing for some flexibility in the electronic reporting applications that can be used as long as those programs collect the necessary data fields, and thus to some degree is performance oriented versus implementing strict requirements for a specific electronic reporting application. Thus, NMFS has considered the significant alternatives to the proposed rule and focused on modernizing and consolidating reporting requirements for HMS permit holders in order to minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

NMFS is considering two suites of alternatives regarding implementation of a commercial electronic logbook to replace the existing paper commercial Atlantic HMS logbook and Coastal Fisheries logbook. Alternative A1 addresses the format for submission of logbooks and associated weighout slips. Alternative A2 addresses the timing requirement for logbook submission. Sub-alternatives under these alternatives are described below.

Two sub-alternatives are being considered for the format for submission of logbooks and associated weighout slips (Alternative A1). Sub-alternative A1a is the status quo alternative for the format for submission of logbooks and associated weighout slips. The status quo would maintain consistency with current requirements and maintain the current business practices of vessel owners/operators. However, given that other NMFS GARFO and SERO permits require, or have proposed requiring, electronic submission of logbooks, maintaining paper reporting for vessel owners/operators with HMS commercial limited access permits would cause an increased burden on those owners/operators as they would need to fill out multiple logbook submissions where they also hold GARFO and/or SERO permits. Electronic submission, including for weighout slips, also reduces the administrative burden on the Agency for logbook processing.

Under Sub-alternative A1b, the preferred alternative, owners/operators of vessels with HMS commercial limited access permits would complete and submit logbook reports electronically, and rather than mailing in the weighout slips, they would be submitted electronically with the logbook as an uploaded file. Electronic submission of logbooks could allow for “One Stop Reporting” for vessel owners/operators that hold some combination of HMS, SERO, and GARFO permits.

NMFS estimates that after an initial period of adjustment of business practices needed to go from a paper to an electronic format, the number of reports and time needed to complete the reports will remain similar to the status quo. NMFS estimates that a typical small business using the HMS commercial logbook would submit 45 trip reports per year and each of those reports would take about 12 minutes to complete. The total reporting burden associated with trip/set summary reports would be approximately $254 per year per business (45 reports * 0.2 hours * $28.28/hour = $254 per year). NMFS also estimates that a typical small business using the HMS commercial logbook would submit on average five No-Fishing/No Catch reports per year that take 2 minutes to complete. The total reporting burden associated with trip/set summary reports would be approximately $4 per year per business (5 reports * 0.03 hours * $28.28/hour = $4 per year). NMFS also estimates that weighout slips are completed by dealers for vessel owners/operators on average five times per year and can take an hour to produce for a total estimated labor burden per business per year of approximately $141 (5 reports * 1 hour * $28.28/hour = $141 per year). Based on 2022 logbook reporting activity, 137 vessels reported in the current paper based Atlantic HMS logbook and 86 HMS permitted vessels reported HMS landings in the Coastal Fisheries logbook. These reports would take an estimated 10 and 2 minutes to complete, respectively, for a combined 2,059 burden hours per year across the fleet.

Note that under Sub-alternative A1b, NMFS may evaluate the need to continue to collect individual carcass weights via weighout slips in the future. Under preferred Alternative D2, described below, dealers would be required to report individual carcass weights for additional species. After collecting data from both vessel weighout slips and dealers, NMFS would consider whether sufficient information is being collected via dealer reporting to discontinue collection of individual carcass weights on weighout slips in the future. That would save dealers the costs associated with producing weighout slips for vessel owners/operators or vessel owner/operators having to create those weighout slips themselves. The average cost per dealer is approximately $141 per year to complete weighout slips.

NMFS is considering four sub-alternatives regarding the timing requirements for logbook submission. Sub-alternative A2a is the status quo alternative for timing of logbook submission. The status quo would maintain consistency with current requirements and maintain the current business practices of vessel owners/operators, and therefore not change the operating costs for these small businesses. However, maintaining a two-tiered requirement for timing of reporting ( i.e., entering information within 48 hours and submitting logbook reports within 7 days) may make the regulations overly complicated. The requirement to submit logbooks within 7 days of offloading would remain consistent with the requirement for SERO permit holders. Vessel owners/operators that hold both HMS commercial limited access permits and GARFO permits would continue to follow the 48-hour reporting requirement for GARFO permit holders.

Under preferred Sub-alternative A2b, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed electronic logbook reports within 7 days of offloading all HMS. The 7-day reporting requirement would be consistent with the status quo timing requirement for submission of logbooks in the HMS regulations as well as with the timing requirement for submission of commercial logbooks by SERO permit holders. Vessel owners/operators that hold both HMS commercial limited access permits and GARFO permits would continue to follow the 48-hour eVTR submission requirement for GARFO permit holders. While NMFS would continue to encourage vessel owners/operators to complete logbooks as soon as possible in communications, removing the 48-hour logbook information entry requirement from the regulations would simplify reporting by having a single deadline to complete and submit HMS logbook reports, and would also better match current practices of vessel owners/operators. However, removing this requirement could discourage timely recording of trip details in the logbook, and thus increase recall bias and degrade data accuracy, and thus we encourage vessel owners/operators to complete this information as soon as possible. Nevertheless, requiring logbook submission on a longer timeframe gives more flexibility to vessel owners/operators to complete reports when they have the opportunity. A longer timeframe also allows vessel owner/operators time to receive information they may need from dealers or others, for example, weighout slips. Giving a longer timeframe for submission also allows vessel owners/operators time to seek assistance they may need in completing their logbooks, for example, from customer service associated with electronic logbooks, or language assistance from community groups ( e.g., Vietnamese and Spanish community groups).

Under Sub-alternative A2c, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit logbook reports within 48 hours of offloading all HMS, including the cost-earnings portion of the logbook for selected vessel owners. This requirement to submit logbook reports within 48 hours would be consistent with the timing requirement for submission of eVTRs by GARFO permit holders (although eVTRs must be completed to the extent possible prior to entering port) but would be more restrictive than the requirement for SERO permit holders. Requiring logbook submission on a shorter timeframe allows for NMFS to receive and analyze data in a timely manner. In addition, it could improve data quality and accuracy by reducing recall bias, improving stakeholder confidence, and reducing uncertainty associated with these data when used in science or management applications. However, this alternative is more restrictive than the status quo and preferred alternative, so it provides HMS vessel owners/operators less flexibility in reporting, reduces the time they have to get assistance with reporting, and therefore could be more costly for some small businesses.

Under Sub-alternative A2d, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit logbook reports within 24 hours of offloading all HMS, including the cost-earnings portion of the logbook for selected vessel owners. This alternative is consistent with the catch reporting requirements we have for our open access tuna handgear permits that interact with bluefin tuna commercially. This requirement to submit logbook entries within 24 hours would be consistent with preferred Sub-alternative B2a for timing of logbook submission by vessel owner/operators with HMS open access commercial permits ( i.e., Atlantic Tunas General or Harpoon category and Swordfish General Commercial) or HMS Charter/Headboat permits. The impacts of this alternative are similar to Sub-alternative A2c but is even more restrictive with its shorter time frame for reporting making it very difficult for HMS vessel owners/operators to seek assistance for electronic reporting or to deal with unexpected circumstances that might result in minor delays in reporting. This alternative is more restrictive than Sub-alternative A2c, and therefore, could be more costly for some small businesses.

NMFS is considering three suites of alternatives regarding implementation of an electronic logbook requirement for vessel owners/operators that hold certain HMS commercial open access permits and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permit. The commercial open access permits referenced under these alternatives are the Atlantic Tunas General category permit, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permit, and Swordfish General Commercial permit. Alternative B1 addresses electronic logbook requirements for these permit categories. Alternative B2 addresses the timing requirement for electronic logbook submission. Alternative B3 addresses cost and earnings information. Sub-alternatives under these alternatives are described below.

Sub-alternative B1a is the status quo alternative for catch reporting for these permits. NMFS would maintain existing electronic catch reporting for vessel owners/operators with Atlantic Tunas General and Harpoon category permits through an electronic system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting or reporting via telephone. NMFS would require reporting of bluefin tuna landings and dead discards only, and vessel owners/operators would only report on trips where bluefin tuna are caught. NMFS would also maintain existing electronic reporting for owners/operators of HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels through an electronic system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting, reporting via telephone, or by other means as specified by NMFS. Owners/operators of HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels would report all bluefin tuna landings and dead discards, all non-tournament landings of Atlantic blue marlin, Atlantic white marlin, roundscale spearfish, and Atlantic sailfish, and all non-tournament and non-commercial landings of North Atlantic swordfish. The status quo would maintain consistency with current requirements and maintain the current business practices of vessel owners/operators. It would continue to allow timely inseason quota management, particularly for bluefin tuna and billfish. NMFS would continue to allow landings to be phoned in, and retaining telephone reporting would continue the administrative time and cost to the Agency of receiving and returning phone calls and voicemails.

Sub-alternative B1b would be the same as Sub-alternative B1a with the exception of removing the option to report via telephone. Removing telephone reporting would impact a small number of businesses that own or operate vessels with Atlantic Tunas General category, Harpoon category, Swordfish General Commercial, or HMS Charter/Headboat permits that have become accustomed to reporting via telephone might have some minor costs associated with switching to another reporting method. In 2022, less than 7 percent of reports ( i.e., 433 reports) came in via telephone or email, the remaining 93 percent ( i.e., 5,837 reports) were reported electronically via either eTRIPS, the HMS Permits website, or the HMS Catch Reporting smartphone application.

Under preferred Sub-alternative B1c, NMFS would expand species and trip reporting requirements via electronic logbook for vessel owners/operators with Atlantic Tunas General category, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category, Swordfish General Commercial, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permits. Electronic logbook reporting under preferred Sub-alternative B1c would be for all trips, including trips taken by an Atlantic Tunas General category, Swordfish General Commercial, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessel when participating in a tournament. Vessel owners/operators would indicate in the logbook which trips were associated with a tournament. Implementation of a logbook program would place added burden on vessel owners/operators. The requirement to report on all trips, regardless of whether fish were caught, and to report all species, would be consistent with the current commercial Atlantic HMS logbook and with requirements for GARFO commercial and for-hire permit holders and SERO South Atlantic for-hire permit holders. The requirement to submit no-fishing reports on a monthly basis for months in which no fishing activity took place would be similar to the commercial Atlantic HMS logbook.

Alternative B2 only applies if implementing an electronic logbook under preferred Sub-alternative B1c above. The following sub-alternatives consider the timing requirement for submission of an electronic logbook.

Under preferred Sub-alternative B2a, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed electronic logbooks within 24 hours of the end of a trip. This sub-alternative would maintain the 24-hour catch reporting requirement that vessel owners/operators currently follow but would expand the amount of information they may be submitting after each trip. Currently vessel owners/operators must submit bluefin tuna landings within 24 hours to allow for in season monitoring of different, and often small, bluefin tuna quotas and subquotas. This preferred sub-alternative would maintain the 24-hour reporting deadline for bluefin tuna while providing for a single timing requirement for all logbook submissions. Having more than one reporting deadline under this logbook would make the regulations more complex both for vessel owners/operators and for enforcement.

Some GARFO and SERO South Atlantic for-hire vessel owners/operators possess HMS Charter/Headboat permits in case of incidental HMS catch. Given that Sub-alternative B2a would be more restrictive than the reporting requirement for GARFO commercial or for-hire permit holders, or for SERO South Atlantic for-hire permit holders, these permit holders may decide to drop their HMS commercial open access or Charter/Headboat permits to avoid the extra reporting burden.

Under Sub-alternative B2b, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed electronic logbooks within 48 hours of the end of a trip. The requirement to report within 48 hours under Sub-alternative B2b would be consistent with the reporting requirement for GARFO commercial and for-hire permit holders but would be more restrictive than the requirement for SERO South Atlantic for-hire permit holders. However, this sub-alternative would delay the bluefin tuna catch data stream that is used for management of category quotas and subquotas.

Under Sub-alternative B2c, for trips with bluefin tuna landings or dead discards, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed electronic logbooks within 24 hours of the end of a trip. For trips with no bluefin tuna landings or dead discards, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed electronic logbooks within 48 hours of the end of a trip. Sub-alternative B2c would maintain the important data stream for inseason management of bluefin tuna category quotas and subquotas, while allowing additional time for vessel owners/operators to report on non-bluefin tuna trips. However, this sub-alternative would complicate the reporting regulations. The 48-hour reporting requirement would be consistent with the reporting requirement for GARFO commercial and for-hire permit holders but would be more restrictive than the requirement for SERO South Atlantic for-hire permit holders.

Under Sub-alternative B2d, for trips with bluefin tuna landings or dead discards, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed electronic logbooks within 24 hours of the end of a trip. For trips with no bluefin tuna landings or dead discards, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit completed electronic logbooks within 7 days of the end of a trip. This sub-alternative would maintain the important data stream for inseason management of bluefin tuna category quotas and subquotas, while allowing a substantial amount of additional time for vessel owners/operators to report on non-bluefin tuna trips. However, this sub-alternative would complicate the reporting regulations. The 7-day reporting requirement would mirror requirements for SERO South Atlantic for-hire permit holders, but vessel owners/operators that hold both HMS commercial open access or Charter/Headboat permits and GARFO permits would continue to follow the 48-hour reporting requirement for GARFO permit holders.

Sub-alternative B3a is the status quo alternative for collection of cost and earnings information. This status quo requirement to report in logbooks, including completion of the cost-earnings portion, although in the regulations, has not been exercised by NMFS on a regular basis for vessel owners with open access commercial or HMS charter/headboat permits.

Under Sub-alternative B3b, vessel owners/operators with Atlantic Tunas General category, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category, Swordfish General Commercial, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permits selected by NMFS for a given calendar year would submit cost and earnings information only via an annual survey, rather than through post-trip logbook submissions. Particularly for the for-hire industry, because it is relatively consistent in trip duration, fishing location, and target species, a survey that collects data on annual expenses and average trip costs and earnings could be sufficient to characterize the economic impacts of for-hire fishing while minimizing duplicative reporting on charter/headboat owners/operators. However, collecting cost-earnings data from only a portion of permitted vessels would not provide as complete economic data as if all vessel owners/operators are reporting. Vessel owners/operators with Federal for-hire permits in the South Atlantic, in addition to an HMS Charter/Headboat permit, would need to report cost and earnings information for all trips following the South Atlantic requirements.

Under preferred Sub-alternative B3c, all vessel owners/operators with Atlantic Tunas General category, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category, Swordfish General Commercial, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permits would submit cost and earnings information for each trip through the completion of a cost-earnings portion in the electronic logbook. This requirement would follow the timing implemented under Alternative B2 in order to maintain one timeline for reporting and facilitate compliance monitoring. Vessel owners/operators selected by NMFS for a given calendar year would submit additional cost and earnings information via an annual survey. Reporting cost and earnings information on all trips would be consistent with the electronic reporting requirements for vessel owner/operators with Federal for-hire permits in the South Atlantic. However, if preferred Sub-alternative B2a is implemented, collecting cost and earnings information for each trip would add to the information that vessel owners/operators would need to report within 24 hours after a trip.

NMFS is considering four alternatives (C1, C2, C3, and C4) regarding reporting requirements for vessel owners with an HMS Angling permit, as listed below. HMS Angling permit holders are considered individuals and not small entities under RFA. Alternative C1 is the status quo alternative for reporting by vessel owners with HMS Angling permits under which vessel owners would be required to report all bluefin tuna, billfish, and swordfish landings and bluefin tuna dead discards. These catch reports can be submitted through an electronic system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting (currently, the HMS Permits website or the HMS Catch Reporting smartphone application), a telephone number designated by NMFS, or by other means as specified by NMFS. Alternative C2, the preferred alternative, removes the option for HMS Angling permit holders to report via telephone. Alternative C3 would require the owner of an HMS Angling permitted vessel to report all pelagic shark landings in addition to the current species reporting requirements under the status quo. Finally, Alternative C4 would require the owner of an HMS Angling permitted vessel to report all BAYS tunas landings in addition to the species reporting requirements under the status quo. None of these alternatives would have direct economic impacts on small entities since these alternatives only impact vessel owners with an HMS Angling permit.

NMFS is considering four alternatives (D1, D2, D3, and D4) regarding individual fish reports by HMS dealers and/or bluefin tuna reporting requirements, with two alternatives preferred. NMFS considers all HMS dealers to be considered small entities, therefore these four alternatives are detailed here along with the economic impacts of those alternatives on the HMS dealers.

Alternative D1 is the status quo alternative for Federal HMS dealer reporting. Currently, dealers are required to report individual fish weights for bluefin tuna. For other species ( i.e., swordfish, BAYS tunas, sharks), dealers may report individual fish weights or they may report an aggregate weight for a given species. Currently, dealers with Atlantic tunas dealer permits must also submit a complete bi-weekly report on forms available from NMFS for bluefin tuna received from U.S. vessels. The status quo would maintain consistency with current requirements and maintain the current business practices of dealers. Under the status quo, dealers have flexibility to report according to their business practices, so some reports are at the individual fish level and some reports are at the aggregate weight level for fish that are all of the same species, quality, and price. The status quo would also maintain a duplicative reporting requirement for bluefin tuna bi-weekly reports. There would be no change in economic impact to the HMS dealer small businesses.

Alternative D2, a preferred alternative, expands individual fish reports to BAYS tunas, swordfish, and pelagic sharks ( i.e., blue, porbeagle, common thresher, and, if and when allowed, shortfin mako sharks). Currently, HMS dealers are required to report individual fish weights for bluefin tuna but have the option to report aggregate weights for all other HMS-managed species. NMFS estimates 500 HMS dealers would submit 26 electronic landings reports per year taking an estimated 1 hour on average per report for 26 hours of total burden per reporter or $735 in labor costs per year per respondent. An additional 40 HMS dealers that use a “file upload” model of reporting would be estimated to submit 45 landings reports per year taking an estimated 2 hours on average per report for 90 hours per year per respondent or $2,545 in labor costs per year per respondent. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Alternative D3 would expand individual fish reports only when buying fish from vessels that do not submit weighout slips. Dealers buying fish landed from vessels whose owners/operators are submitting weighout slips with their logbook reporting ( i.e., owners/operators that report in the Atlantic HMS logbook, or that would report in the SEFSC Commercial Electronic Logbook under preferred Sub-alternative A1b) would not be required to report swordfish, BAYS tunas, and pelagic shark species individually on Federal dealer reports. Dealers would only be required to report these species individually when buying fish landed from vessels whose owner/operators do not submit weighout slips ( i.e., owners/operators of vessels with an Atlantic Tunas General category permit, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permit, Swordfish General Commercial permit, and/or HMS Charter/Headboat permit).

This alternative would reduce the number of reports in which dealers had to report individual fish weights, while also receiving individual fish weight information from dealer reports that would not correspond with similar information on weighout slips. However, under this alternative, the Agency would need to maintain the weighout slip requirement for vessel owners/operators reporting in the SEFSC Commercial Electronic Logbook under preferred Sub-alternative A1b.

Alternative D4, a preferred alternative, would remove the requirement for dealers to submit bi-weekly landing and trade reports for bluefin tuna. The information submitted via bi-weekly report is already collected under other bluefin tuna reporting requirements at § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A). This preferred alternative would reduce the reporting burden for Atlantic tunas dealers and administrative burden on NMFS. It is estimated the elimination of the bi-weekly reports would reduce bluefin tuna dealer reporting burden by approximately 15 minutes per report and it is estimated that on average each permitted dealer submitted one report per year.

In this action, NMFS has considered the significant alternatives to the proposed rule and focused on modernizing and consolidating reporting requirements for HMS permit holders in order to minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The expansion of reporting requirements would create consistency with NMFS efforts in other fisheries and augment data necessary for fishery science and management. In this IRFA, NMFS analyzed reporting burden and associated labor costs, as these are the only economic costs anticipated to be incurred under the proposed changes in reporting requirements. There is no requirement to purchase any specialized equipment, as the approved electronic reporting systems/applications could be accessed on any desktop computer, smartphone, or other device, which are considered to be standard business costs. For vessel owners/operators with HMS commercial limited access permits, the preferred alternatives would complete and submit logbook reports electronically, and rather than mailing in the weighout slips, they would be submitted electronically with the logbook as an uploaded file. Electronic logbook reports would need to be submitted within 7 days of offloading all HMS. NMFS estimates that after an initial period of adjustment of business practices needed to go from a paper to an electronic format, the number of reports and time needed to complete the reports will remain similar to the status quo. For vessel owners/operators with Atlantic Tunas General category, Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category, Swordfish General Commercial, or HMS Charter/Headboat permits, the preferred alternatives would expand species and trip reporting requirements via electronic logbook to report on all trips, regardless of whether fish were caught, and to report all species. Electronic logbook reports would need to be submitted within 24 hours of the end of a trip. All vessel owners/operators would submit cost and earnings information for each trip through the completion of a cost-earnings portion in the electronic logbook, and vessel owners/operators selected by NMFS for a given calendar year would submit additional cost and earnings information via an annual survey. Taken together, the preferred alternatives would increase the reporting burden for these vessel owners/operators with HMS open access permits, compared to the status quo catch reporting requirements. For HMS dealers, the preferred alternatives would expand individual fish weights in dealer reports to BAYS tunas, swordfish, and pelagic sharks, as well as remove the requirement for dealers to submit bi-weekly landing and trade reports for bluefin tuna. Requiring reporting of additional individual fish weights would increase the burden and labor costs on HMS dealers, while removing the bi-weekly reporting requirement would result in a small reduction in burden. NMFS is also proposing changes to reporting for vessel owners with HMS Angling permits; however, this change would not have direct economic impacts on small entities and, therefore, was not analyzed under this IRFA.

This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). This rule would revise the existing requirements for three collections of information, including OMB Control Numbers 0648-0371 “Highly Migratory Species Vessel Logbooks and Cost-Earnings Data Reports,” 0648-0040 “Highly Migratory Species Dealer Reporting Family of Forms,” and 0648-0328 “Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Recreational Landings and Bluefin Tuna Catch Reports.”

This proposed rule would revise and extend the existing requirements under OMB Control Number 0648-0371, “Highly Migratory Species Vessel Logbooks and Cost-Earnings Data Reports,” for owners/operators of vessels with HMS commercial limited access permits ( i.e., Atlantic Tunas Longline category, shark directed, shark incidental, swordfish directed, swordfish incidental, and swordfish handgear) to complete and submit logbook reports electronically under the SEFSC Commercial Electronic Logbook through an electronic system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting, where previously they have been required to submit a paper-based logbook. Additionally, rather than mailing in paper weighout slips, vessel owners/operators would be required to submit them electronically with the logbook as an uploaded file. NMFS would develop an optional standardized weighout slip form, which could be completed by HMS dealers for the vessel owners/operators.

We estimate 225 vessel owners/operators with HMS limited access permits would complete 45 electronic trip/set reports, and 5 no-fishing/no catch reports each year with no additional recordkeeping or reporting costs, excluding labor costs. These reports would take an estimated 10 and 2 minutes to complete, respectively, for a combined 2,059 burden hours per year across the fleet. A subset of 45 vessel owners/operators with limited access permits would be selected for cost-earnings reporting which would require the electronic submission of an estimated 9 trip cost-earnings reports, and 1 annual expenditure report per year, each at an estimated 30 minutes to complete for a combined 206 burden hours per year. Finally, we estimate a maximum of 540 HMS dealers would use the optional form provided by NMFS to generate 5 vessel weighout slips per year to be submitted by vessel owners/operators with electronic logbook requirements. The completion of these weighout slip forms would take an estimated 1 hour each on average for an estimated total of 2,700 burden hours per year. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

This proposed rule would also revise and extend the existing logbook reporting requirements under OMB Control Number 0648-0371, “Highly Migratory Species Vessel Logbooks and Cost-Earnings Data Reports,” for vessel owners/operators with open access Atlantic Tunas and Swordfish permits, including the Atlantic Tunas General or Harpoon category, Swordfish General Commercial, and HMS Charter/Headboat permits. Currently, these individuals are only required to maintain and submit paper logbook reports if selected to report in the Atlantic HMS logbook. Under this proposed rule, these permit holders would be required to report all trips, regardless of target species or whether fish were caught, through an electronic logbook system/application approved by NMFS for Atlantic HMS reporting. Each trip report would also include trip-level cost-earnings reporting, and no-fishing reports would be required on a monthly basis for months in which no fishing activity took place. A sub-sample of permit holders would also be selected to complete an annual expenditure report. We estimate 7,043 vessel owners with open access Atlantic tunas, swordfish, or HMS Charter/Headboat permits would complete on average 46 trip reports and 4 no-fishing reports each year with no additional recordkeeping of reporting costs, excluding labor costs. These reports would take an estimated 10 and 2 minutes to complete, respectively, for a combined 65,420 burden hours per year across the fleet. A subset of 1,409 vessel owners would be selected to complete an annual expenditure report at an estimated 30 minutes to complete for an additional 704 burden hours per year. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

This proposed rule would also revise and extend reporting requirements under OMB Control Number 0648-0328, “Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Recreational Landings and Bluefin Tuna Catch Reports.” Currently, HMS Angling, HMS Charter/Headboat, and Atlantic Tunas General and Harpoon category permit holders are required to submit catch reports for bluefin tuna, billfish, and swordfish within 24 hours of landing them. There are several options for submitting these reports, including via an online reporting portal on the HMS Permits website, an HMS Catch Reporting mobile application, designated for-hire electronic logbook applications, two State HMS catch card programs, and a toll-free phone line. Changes to OMB Control Number 0648-0328, “Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Recreational Landings and Bluefin Tuna Catch Reports,” to align with the proposed rule would eliminate the option to report via toll-free phone line, while continuing to allow reporting via the other reporting options. It is estimated that this change would have no impact on estimated reporting burden, as each method has the same estimated burden per response.

This proposed rule would also revise and extend reporting requirements under OMB Control Number 0648-0040, “Highly Migratory Species Dealer Reporting Family of Forms”, for federally permitted HMS dealers. Currently, HMS dealers are required to report individual fish weights for bluefin tuna but have the option to report aggregate weights for all other HMS-managed species. This rule proposes to expand the requirement for HMS dealers to report individual fish weights to BAYS tunas, swordfish, and pelagic sharks ( i.e., blue, porbeagle, common thresher, and, if and when allowed, shortfin mako sharks). We estimate 500 HMS dealers would submit 26 electronic landings reports per year taking an estimated 1 hour on average per report for 13,000 hours of total burden. An additional 40 HMS dealers that use a “file upload” model of reporting would be estimated to submit 45 landings reports per year taking an estimated 2 hours on average per report for 3,600 total burden hours per year. Additionally, this rule proposes to eliminate the requirement for bluefin tuna dealers to submit bi-weekly landing and trade reports for bluefin tuna received from U.S. vessels as the information submitted via these reports is duplicated under other bluefin tuna reporting requirements. It is estimated that the elimination of the bi-weekly reports would reduce Bluefin Tuna dealer reporting burden by approximately 108 hours per year. Finally, this rule would remove the requirement for dealers to report shark carcasses and fins separately. This change is not anticipated to reduce the number of expected responses and would have minimal impact on the time to complete landings reports and total burden hours. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Public comment is sought, but is not limited to, the following topics: (1) whether these proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department of Commerce, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; (2) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (3) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (4) any other relevant information germane to this rulemaking. Submit comments on these or any other aspects of the collections of information at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond or, nor shall any person by subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 635 as follows: