The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2024-0456; Project Identifier MCAI-2024-00084-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

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

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2024-0037R1, dated February 6, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0037R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), to address an unsafe condition on Austro Engine GmbH Model E4 and E4P engines. The MCAI states that there were reports of engine failures, and subsequent investigation identified a cap screw installed on an inner main bearing that had failed, which caused the engine failure. Further investigation determined that certain batches of cap screws meeting the lower end of their design specification could fail when installed on the inner main bearing and the engine is operated in specific operating conditions. To address this unsafe condition, the manufacturer published a service bulletin to provide instructions for replacement of these affected parts. EASA then issued EASA Emergency AD 2024-0037-E, dated February 2, 2024 (EASA Emergency AD 2024-0037-E), which specified replacing the cap screws installed on the inner main bearing positions with serviceable parts and additional requirements for installation of certain parts and engines.

Additionally, the manufacturer has determined that certain batches of cap screws, installed on the inner main bearing positions of the engine, were produced at the lower end of the material strength tolerance for Class 8.8 screws. Depending on the magnitude of the cap screw's strength properties, the potential for failure, leading to engine failure, exists in cases where abnormal operating conditions are experienced such as fuel quality issues or significant deviations from the fuel system requirements.

Since EASA Emergency AD 2024-0037-E was issued, due to requests for clarification, the compliance time for certain engines has been modified. As a result, EASA revised EASA Emergency AD 2024-0037-E and issued EASA AD 2024-0037R1 to include the updated compliance times and additionally to include ferry flight criteria for certain affected engines. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in engine failure, reduced control of the airplane, and for single engine airplanes, an emergency landing, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0456.

The FAA reviewed the following service information:

• Austro Engine GmbH Mandatory No. Service Bulletin MSB-E4-042, Revision 0, dated January 31, 2024, which details certain engines and engine cores with affected cap screws installed on the inner main bearing positions of the engine.

• Austro Engine GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB-E4-042, Revision 0, dated February 2, 2024, which specifies instructions for replacing the affected cap screws installed on the inner main bearing positions of the engine.

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

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

This AD requires replacing certain cap screws, installed on the inner main bearing positions of the engine, with a part eligible for installation. This AD also prohibits installing certain cap screws on any inner main bearing position of any engine. This AD also prohibits installing certain engine cores on any engine unless certain requirements are met.

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

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the cap screws installed on the inner main bearing positions of the engine are critical components for engine operation. The inadequate strength properties and subsequent failure of the cap screws could lead to engine failure during flight. The FAA also has received no information indicating how quickly the condition may propagate to failure, therefore these affected parts must be replaced before further flight on certain engines. Consequently, the required replacement of cap screws before those engines is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

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

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 357 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2023 (88 FR 53402). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2022-35, dated June 29, 2022, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracks in the principal structural elements of the fuselage and wings. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1704.

The FAA received a comment from MHI RJ Aviation ULC. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

MHI RJ Aviation ULC requested that the FAA provide credit for accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD prior to the effective date of this AD in accordance with MHI RJ Aviation CRJ550/700/705/900/1000 Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM) Part 2, CSP B-053, Revision 24, dated February 25, 2021; or MHI RJ Aviation CRJ550/700/705/900/1000 Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM) Part 2, CSP B-053, Revision 25, dated June 25, 2021. MHI RJ Aviation ULC pointed out that some of the tasks were initially introduced or revised in these revisions and that allowing credit would allow operators that have already accomplished the actions to avoid the need to request an alternative method of compliance with paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.

The FAA agrees to allow credit for the specified revisions for the reasons provided. Therefore, a new paragraph (i) has been added to this AD to provide credit for operators that have incorporated the new/revised tasks into their maintenance program using the specified revisions. Subsequent paragraphs have been redesignated accordingly.

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

The FAA reviewed MHI RJ Aviation CRJ550/700/705/900/1000 Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM) Part 2, CSP B-053, Revision 26, dated March 25, 2022. This service information specifies new or revised tasks to detect cracks in the principal structural elements of the fuselage and wings. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 601 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 5, 2023 (88 FR 42884). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2022-40, dated July 21, 2022, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that Bombardier determined that non-destructive testing manual (NDTM) procedure ET-57-51-009, dated May 6, 2019, or earlier, did not contain all of the necessary instructions to perform the inspections of the inboard, mid, and outboard flap metallic end ribs in associated airworthiness limitation task number 57-51-00-109. If those inspections are not fully completed, there is a potential for undetected cracks in the inspection area; which can result in structural failure of the flap.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a revision to the existing maintenance or inspection program to require using a revised NDT procedure when performing a certain airworthiness limitation task. The FAA also proposed to prohibit the use of earlier revisions of that NDT procedure when performing that airworthiness limitation task. The FAA is issuing this AD to address undetected cracking. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of the flap, which could result in possible reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1223.

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

NetJets requested that the proposed applicability be clarified if aircraft types G5500 and G6000 are affected, considering that the required actions in paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD reference a G5000 NDT manual only, but the serial numbers specified in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD include the G5500 and G6000 airplanes.

Additionally, NetJets requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be revised to remove reference to “Revision 46” because the G5500 NDT manual is not at that revision level. NetJets noted that Transport Canada did not refer to a revision level to avoid alternative method of compliance (AMOC) requests.

The FAA contacted Bombardier and confirmed the G5500 and G6000 airplanes are included in the applicability as well as the G6000, G5000 GVFD, Global Express, and Global XRS airplanes. Paragraph (c) of this AD specifies that the AD applies to Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, having serial numbers 9002 through 9879 inclusive, 9998, and 60001 and subsequent; these serial numbers include airplanes with the marketing designations Global 5000, Global 5000 GVFD, Global 5500, Global 6000, Global 6500, Global Express, and Global Express XRS. The FAA also confirmed that operators cannot use the G5000 NDT manual for all airplanes as it is only applicable to the G5000 and would need to get an AMOC to comply with this AD as proposed. The FAA has revised paragraph (g) of this AD to reference the appropriate NDT manuals for all of the airplanes identified in the applicability, including the appropriate revision level of each manual. The FAA must include revision levels due to Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations on citing material that must be used to comply with an AD and is incorporated by reference. The requirements and substantive contents of the required task in each NDT manual are the same and the cost to use each NDT manual is the same; therefore this revision does not create an additional burden on operators. The FAA has also revised paragraph (h) of this AD to remove the reference to specific NDT manuals.

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

The FAA reviewed the revised inspection procedures for NDT procedure ET-57-51-009, “Special Detailed Inspection of the Inboard, Mid and Outboard Flap (Metallic) End Ribs,” of Part 6-Eddy Current, of the following nondestructive testing manuals. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations.

(1) Bombardier Global 5000 Nondestructive Testing Manual, Publication No. BD-700 NDTM, Revision 46, dated August 16, 2022.

(2) Bombardier Global 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight Deck Nondestructive Testing Manual, Publication No. GL 5000 GVFD NDTM, Revision 34, dated August 16, 2022.

(3) Bombardier Global 5500 Nondestructive Testing Manual, Publication No. GL 5500 NDTM, Revision 8, dated August 16, 2022.

(4) Bombardier Global 6000 Nondestructive Testing Manual, Publication No. GL 6000 NDTM, Revision 34, dated August 16, 2022.

(5) Bombardier Global 6500 Nondestructive Testing Manual, Publication No. GL 6500 NDTM, Revision 8, dated August 16, 2022.

(6) Bombardier Global Express Nondestructive Testing Manual, Publication No. BD-700-NDTM, Revision 48, dated August 16, 2022.

(7) Bombardier Global Express XRS Nondestructive Testing Manual, Publication No. BD-700 XRS NDTM, Revision 44, dated August 16, 2022.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 441 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA'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 the 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 modifies the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

On June 19, 2021, the Cincinnati VORTAC was struck by lightning and caught fire which destroyed the navigational aid facility. As a result, the FAA issued a Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) that has listed the Cincinnati VORTAC as out-of-service since the lightning strike. The Cincinnati VORTAC outage affects three of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport Class B airspace sub-areas which use the VORTAC to describe their boundaries. To retain the accuracy of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport Class B airspace area, the FAA is removing the Cincinnati VORTAC references in the three affected sub-areas and using a reference point located at the same geographic coordinates listed for the VORTAC.

To overcome the lightning strike and Cincinnati VORTAC outage, the FAA plans to replace the destroyed Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) and Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) equipment only. The VOR portion of the Cincinnati VORTAC is not planned for replacement as the VOR is one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082. The FAA is planning to decommission the VOR portion of the Cincinnati VORTAC in February 2025.

As noted previously, the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport Class B airspace description uses the Cincinnati VORTAC to describe three sub-area shelf boundaries. To ensure there will be no changes to the existing charted boundaries of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport Class B airspace area, the FAA is removing the Cincinnati VORTAC references and using a reference point located at the same geographic coordinates (lat. 39°00′57″ N, long. 084°42′12″ W) listed for the Cincinnati VORTAC in the description prior to this rule.

Additionally, the geographic coordinates for the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport ARP are updated to “lat. 39°02′56″ N, long. 084°40′04″ W” to match the FAA's NASR database information. As a result of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport ARP moving northwest by approximately 1,900 feet, the FAA is changing the center point of the Class B airspace from the airport to a “Point of Origin” reference using the geographic coordinates “lat. 39°02′46″ N, long. 084°39′44″ W” that are listed for the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport in the description prior to this rule.

Lastly, references to the Indiana-Ohio State Line used in the Class B airspace description are removed since the state line is not a prominent landmark easily identified from the air and replaced with the longitude coordinates that reflect the state line more accurately using digital charting technology tools today. The longitude information listed for the state line is changed from “long. 084°49′00″ W” to “long. 084°49′12″ W.”

Class B airspace designations are published in paragraph 3000 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 amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by making editorial changes to the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, KY, Class B airspace description. This action removes references to the Cincinnati VORTAC in three sub-area shelf boundaries (Areas B, C, and F) and replaces them with a reference point located at the same geographic coordinates for the Cincinnati VORTAC listed in the description prior to this rule. The Class B airspace boundaries affected by the Cincinnati VORTAC will remain unchanged and unaffected by replacing the Cincinnati VORTAC references to a reference point located at the Cincinnati VORTAC geographic coordinates.

Additionally, the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, KY, Class B airspace description title is updated by removing the airport name and state from the Class B airspace designation and only listing the city and state where the airport is located (Covington, KY) to comply with the FAA's regulatory guidance. The geographic coordinates for the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport ARP are also updated from “lat. 39°02′46″ N, long. 084°39′44″ W” to “lat. 39°02′56″ N, long. 084°40′04″ W” to match the FAA's NASR database information. As a result of the ARP update to the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, the center point of the Class B airspace is changed from the airport to a “Point of Origin” using the geographic coordinates “lat. 39°02′46″ N, long. 084°39′44″ W” that match the geographic coordinates published for the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport prior to this rule.

Lastly, references to the Indiana-Ohio State Line are removed and replaced with the longitude coordinates that reflect the state line more accurately using digital charting technology tools. The longitude information listed for the state line is changed from “long. 084°49′00″ W” to “long. 084°49′12″ W.” This removal of the state line reference and update of the longitude coordinates more accurately aligns with the Indiana-Ohio State Line and matches the currently charted boundaries that reference the state line. Further, minor editorial amendments are made to the Covington, KY, Class B airspace sub-area descriptions for clarity and readability.

Since this action merely involves minor editorial amendments in the Covington, KY, Class B airspace area description and does not change the charted boundaries, altitudes, ATC procedures, or operating requirements for the Class B airspace area, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.

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

The FAA has determined that this action amending the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, KY, Class B airspace description qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321; its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500; and its agency-specific implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. This airspace action is an editorial change only and is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

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 the 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 modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2023-1735 in the Federal Register (88 FR 54959; August 14, 2023), proposing to amend VOR Federal Airways V-78 and V-171 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Darwin, MN, VORTAC NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) 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 amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal Airways V-78 and V-171 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Darwin, MN, VORTAC. The airway actions are described below.

V-78: Prior to this final rule, V-78 extended between the Darwin, MN, VORTAC and the Escanaba, MI, VOR/DME; and between the Pellston, MI, VORTAC and the Saginaw, MI, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Darwin VORTAC and the Gopher, MN, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Gopher VORTAC and the Escanaba VOR/DME and between the Pellston VORTAC and the Saginaw VOR/DME.

V-171: Prior to this final rule, V-171 extended between the Lexington, KY, VOR/DME and the Joliet, IL, VOR/DME; and between the Nodine, MN, VORTAC and the Grand Forks, ND, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Farmington, MN, VORTAC and the Alexandria, MN, VOR/DME is removed. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Lexington VOR/DME and the Joliet VOR/DME, between the Nodine VORTAC and the Farmington VORTAC, and between the Alexandria VOR/DME and the Grand Forks VOR/DME.

The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway descriptions in the regulatory text of this final rule are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal Airways V-78 and V-171, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Darwin, MN, VORTAC NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5k, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov.

In this document, OFAC is updating 20 parts of 31 CFR Chapter V and an Appendix to update the name of an OFAC office and an email address and is updating two parts to remove options for mail submissions. OFAC is also amending four parts to make gender language more inclusive, replacing instances of “his” (when not part of the phrase “his or hers”) with “theirs,” and replacing “he” (when not part of the phrase “he or she”) with “they.” Finally, OFAC is making changes in the authorities citations of 31 CFR part 594 and an Appendix to more specifically reference the relevant statutory authorities in each citation.

Because the amendment of the Regulations is a rule of agency procedure and because it involves a foreign affairs function, the provisions of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended, and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

The collections of information related to the regulations being amended in this rule are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OFAC is issuing the following amendments:

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov/.

On May 28, 2009, OFAC issued the Darfur Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 546 (74 FR 25432, May 28, 2009) (the “Regulations”) to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13400 of April 26, 2006, “Blocking Property of Persons in Connection with the Conflict in Sudan's Darfur Region” (71 FR 25483, May 1, 2006). The Regulations were issued pursuant to authorities delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury in E.O. 13400, which expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in E.O. 13067 of November 3, 1997, “Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan” (62 FR 59989, November 5, 1997) with respect to the policies and actions of the Government of Sudan. Since then, OFAC has amended the Regulations several times. OFAC is now amending the Regulations to implement provisions of E.O. 14098, “Imposing Sanctions on Certain Persons Destabilizing Sudan and Undermining the Goal of a Democratic Transition” (88 FR 29529, May 5, 2023). In addition, OFAC is amending the Regulations to update or add new definitions, general licenses, and interpretative guidance, among other regulatory provisions. Furthermore, OFAC is renaming the Darfur Sanctions Regulations as the Sudan Stabilization Sanctions Regulations to reflect the expanded scope of the national emergency, as set forth in E.O. 14098.

On May 4, 2023, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ) (IEEPA), issued E.O. 14098. In E.O. 14098, the President expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in E.O. 13067, and expanded by E.O. 13400, finding that the situation in Sudan, including the military's seizure of power in October 2021 and the outbreak of inter-service fighting in April 2023, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

Section 1(a) of E.O. 14098 blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any U.S. person of: (i) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be responsible for, or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, any of the following: (A) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of Sudan; (B) actions or policies that obstruct, undermine, delay, or impede, or pose a significant risk of obstructing, undermining, delaying, or impeding, the formation or operation of a civilian transitional government, Sudan's transition to democracy, or a future democratically elected government; (C) actions or policies that have the purpose or effect of undermining democratic processes or institutions in Sudan; (D) censorship or other actions or policies that prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of freedoms of expression, association, or peaceful assembly by individuals in Sudan, or that limit access to free and independent news or information in or with respect to Sudan; (E) corruption, including bribery, misappropriation of state assets, and interference with public processes such as government oversight of parastatal budgets and revenues for personal benefit; (F) serious human rights abuse, including serious human rights abuse related to political repression, in or with respect to Sudan; (G) the targeting of women, children, or any other civilians through the commission of acts of violence (including killing, maiming, torture, or rape or other sexual violence), abduction, forced displacement, or attacks on schools, hospitals, religious sites, or locations where civilians are seeking refuge, or through conduct that would constitute a serious abuse or violation of human rights or a violation of international humanitarian law; (H) the obstruction of the activities of United Nations missions—including peacekeeping missions, as well as diplomatic or humanitarian missions—in Sudan, or of the delivery of, distribution of, or access to humanitarian assistance; or (I) attacks against United Nations missions, including peacekeeping operations; (ii) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be or have been a leader, official, senior executive officer, or member of the board of directors of any entity: (A) that has, or whose members have, engaged in any activity described in subsection (a)(i) of E.O. 14098 relating to the tenure of such leader, official, senior executive officer, or member of the board of directors; or (B) whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14098 relating to the tenure of such leader, official, senior executive officer, or member of the board of directors; (iii) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be a spouse or adult child of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14098; (iv) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 14098 or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14098; or (v) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14098. The blocked property and interests in property of the persons described above may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

Section 1(b) of E.O. 14098 provides that the prohibitions in section 1(a) of E.O. 14098 apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to E.O. 14098, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of E.O. 14098.

Section 3 of E.O. 14098 provides that the prohibition on any transaction or dealing in blocked property or interests in property includes the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14098, and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

In Section 4 of E.O. 14098, the President determined that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)), by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14098 would seriously impair the President's ability to deal with the national emergency declared in E.O. 13067, as expanded. The President therefore prohibited the donation of such items except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, rulings, instructions, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to E.O. 14098.

Section 5 of E.O. 14098 prohibits any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in E.O. 14098, as well as any conspiracy formed to violate such prohibitions.

Section 9 of E.O. 14098 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of E.O. 14098. Section 9 of E.O. 14098 also provides that the Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury.

In furtherance of the purposes of E.O. 14098, OFAC is changing the heading of the Darfur Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 546, to the Sudan Stabilization Sanctions Regulations and amending the renamed Regulations to implement E.O. 14098, among other changes. In particular, in subpart B of the Regulations, OFAC is revising § 546.201 to incorporate the new designation criteria provided in E.O. 14098, as well as adding § 546.201(e) to implement any future Executive orders issued pursuant to E.O. 13067. Accordingly, throughout the Regulations, OFAC is amending all references to § 546.201(a) to references to § 546.201. In addition, OFAC is adding § 546.206 to detail transactions that are exempt from the prohibitions of the Regulations pursuant to section 203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)).

In subpart C of the Regulations, new definitions are being added to other key terms used throughout the Regulations. Because these new definitions were inserted in alphabetical order, the definitions that were in the prior abbreviated set of regulations have been renumbered. Specifically, OFAC is clarifying that the term OFAC means the Office of Foreign Assets Control, providing a definition for foreign person at § 546.306, and adding definitional guidance at § 546.300 clarifying that the terms defined in subpart C apply throughout the Regulations. Furthermore, OFAC is updating multiple definitions, including its definition of the term effective date at § 546.303.

In subpart D, which contains interpretive sections regarding the Regulations, OFAC is amending several interpretive provisions to align with the aforementioned changes to subpart B, as well as updating several provisions for clarity. OFAC has also added an interpretive provision at § 546.412 to clarify that the property and interests in property of an entity, including any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of a governmental entity, are not blocked solely because one or more persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 546.201 is a member, leader, official, senior executive officer, or otherwise exercises control.

Transactions otherwise prohibited by the Regulations but found to be consistent with U.S. policy may be authorized by one of the general licenses contained in subpart E of the Regulations or by a specific license issued pursuant to the procedures described in subpart E of 31 CFR part 501. OFAC is updating § 546.502 to conform with current statements of licensing policy and revising § 546.511, which authorizes certain transactions for the official business of certain international organizations and entities, and § 546.513, which authorizes certain transactions related to the provision of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components, or software updates, and the extraction, processing, transport, sale, or distribution of water in Sudan. OFAC has also added § 546.508, which authorizes certain payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States. In addition, the interpretive provisions that were in the prior set of regulations have been renumbered.

In subpart G of the Regulations, OFAC is revising several sections to describe the civil and criminal penalties applicable to violations of the Regulations, as well as the procedures governing the potential imposition of a civil monetary penalty or issuance of a Finding of Violation. OFAC is adding § 546.705 describing the procedures governing the potential issuance of a Finding of Violation. Finally, in subpart H of the Regulations, OFAC is updating a section heading at § 546.802 to reflect the delegation of certain authorities of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Throughout the Regulations, OFAC is changing references to “the Office of Foreign Assets Control” and “the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control” to “OFAC” for purposes of clarity and simplicity.

Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended, and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OFAC amends 31 CFR part 546 as follows:

On August 10, 2022, the President signed into law the Honoring our PACT Act of 2022 (the PACT Act), Public Law 117-168. Section 103(a)(1) of the PACT Act amended section 1710(e)(1) of title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.) to establish eligibility for hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care for three new cohorts of toxic-exposed veterans. Sections 1710(e)(1)(G) through (I) describe these three new cohorts of toxic-exposed veterans as follows:

• Cohort 1: Veterans who participated in a toxic exposure risk activity while serving on active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training. (See 38 U.S.C. 1710(e)(1)(G)).

• Cohort 2: Covered veterans as defined in 38 U.S.C. 1119(c). (See 38 U.S.C. 1710(e)(1)(H)). Covered veterans are those veterans who:

○ Performed active military, naval, air, or space service on or after August 2, 1990, while assigned to a duty station in (including airspace above): Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, or the United Arab Emirates; or

○ Performed active military, naval, air, or space service on or after September 11, 2001, while assigned to a duty station in (including airspace above) Afghanistan, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Uzbekistan, or any other country determined relevant by VA (note: VA has not determined any other country relevant at this time).

• Cohort 3: Veterans who deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Freedom's Sentinel, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, Operation Inherent Resolve, and Resolute Support Mission. (See 38 U.S.C. 1710(e)(1)(I)).

Section 1710(e)(6)(A), as added by section 103(a) of the PACT Act, established a specific schedule for eligibility for these veterans depending upon their cohort and their date of discharge or release from the Armed Forces. However, section 1710(e)(6)(B)(i) authorizes VA to modify, to an earlier date, the start dates of VA health care eligibility for the three new cohorts of toxic-exposed veterans. The Secretary has determined modifying these dates is appropriate based on the number of veterans receiving hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care under section 1710(e)(1)(G) through (I) and the resources available to VA.

Consequently, VA is announcing that, effective March 5, 2024, veterans in the three cohorts described above, corresponding to section 1710(e)(1)(G) through (I), are eligible to enroll in VA health care on this basis. Modifying the phased-in schedule to an earlier single eligibility expansion date will provide an all-at-once approach for newly eligible veterans based on the amendments made by section 103(a) of the PACT Act.

To help expedite the VA health care Priority Group upgrade process, VA is developing and will implement system enhancements to VHA's Enrollment System (VES) to assess the enrollment records of veterans who VA enrolled in Priority Group 6 based on their status as a combat veteran (as described in 38 U.S.C. 1710(e)(1)(D)) to determine their eligibility for continued assignment to Priority Group 6 based on their qualification in Cohort 2 or 3. Additionally, VES will assess the enrollment records of veterans enrolled in Priority Groups 7 and 8 to determine their eligibility for assignment to Priority Group 6 under Cohort 2 or 3. By the end of fiscal year 2024, VA will begin conducting targeted outreach to veterans currently enrolled in Priority Groups 7 and 8 whom VA could not determine eligibility for assignment to Priority Group 6 based on being in Cohorts 1, 2, or 3. VA will provide guidance to these veterans on the new authorities, along with instructions on how to submit a VA Form 10-10EZR, Health Benefits Update Form, for consideration of an upgrade to their enrollment Priority Group.

Background: Cohort 1 veterans are those who participated in a toxic exposure risk activity (TERA) while serving on active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training. If the veteran only participated in a TERA outside of one of these service periods ( e.g., as a civilian or private contractor), the veteran is not eligible as a Cohort 1 veteran. 38 U.S.C. 1710(e)(4)(C) defines TERA as any activity that requires a corresponding entry in an exposure tracking record system (as defined in 38 U.S.C. 1119(c)) or that the Secretary determines qualifies for purposes of this subsection when taking into account what is reasonably prudent to protect the health of veterans. 38 U.S.C. 1119(c) defines the term “exposure tracking record system” as any system, program, or pilot program used by VA or the Department of Defense to track how veterans or members of the Armed Forces have been exposed to various occupational or environmental hazards; this includes the Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record (ILER) or successor system.

Description of TERA: VA has determined under 38 U.S.C. 1710(e)(4)(C)(ii) that veterans who were exposed to one or more of the following hazards or conditions during active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training participated in a TERA: air pollutants (burn pits, sand, dust, particulates, oil well fires, sulfur fires), chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, depleted uranium with embedded shrapnel, contaminated water), occupational hazards (asbestos, industrial solvents, lead, paints including chemical agent resistant coating, firefighting foams), radiation (nuclear weapons handling, maintenance and detonation, radioactive material, calibration and measurement sources, X-rays, radiation from military occupational exposure), and warfare agents (nerve agents, chemical and biological weapons). This list is not comprehensive; if veterans believe they participated in other activities that constitute a TERA, they should identify the TERA in their application so VA can determine whether they qualify. Veterans can locate additional military exposure categories on VA's Public Health website at https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/.

Process: Veterans must apply (either as a new enrollee on VA Form 10-10EZ, Application for Health Benefits, or as an existing enrollee on VA Form 10-10EZR, Health Benefits Update Form) for VA to determine whether they participated in a TERA and are eligible for enrollment in Priority Group 6 on that basis. If VA has already determined that a veteran participated in a TERA in the context of a disability claim, that decision will be binding for health care enrollment purposes. If VA has not determined a veteran participated in a TERA, VA will consider required entries in the veteran's ILER, the veteran's Service personnel records, and other sources as necessary, including the veteran's military service record, which may include the veteran's Military Occupational Specialty, and any active military, naval, air, or space service or active duty for training or inactive duty for training to determine whether the veteran participated in a TERA, as described above.

Background: As described above, veterans in Cohorts 2 and 3 served in certain locations during certain time periods (generally, during or after the Persian Gulf War) or in support of certain contingency operations (generally after September 11, 2001).

Process: For current enrollees, VA will review its existing records to determine if the enrollee is a covered veteran or deployed in support of an identified contingency operation. If the veteran's service qualifies, VA will place the veteran in Priority Group 6 unless the veteran qualifies for a higher Priority Group. VA will review new applications for enrollment to determine whether the veteran is eligible for enrollment in Priority Group 6 as a Cohort 2 or Cohort 3 veteran based on qualifying service.

VA is currently drafting a proposed rule to codify in regulation the statutory changes made by section 103(a) of the PACT Act. Due to the time required to promulgate regulations, VA will implement the law and begin processing applications for VA health care pursuant to the amendments made by section 103(a) of the PACT Act on March 5, 2024, based on the sub-regulatory guidance contained in the Under Secretary for Health (USH) Memorandum associated with this Notice. To ensure the enrollment of all veterans eligible under this authority, VA will also begin targeted outreach to current enrollees who may benefit from these changes to provide further information on the amendments made by section 103 of the PACT Act and how to request a Priority Group upgrade. VA will also engage in outreach to unenrolled veterans to encourage them to apply. VA will evaluate the records of veterans applying for VA health care for the first time, if they meet the basic threshold eligibility requirements for VA health care, to determine eligibility under Cohorts 1 through 3 as added by section 103 of the PACT Act (as well as any other bases for eligibility). Issuing the USH Memorandum will allow VA to implement 38 U.S.C. 1710(e)(1)(G) through (I) and deliver health care to veterans as quickly as possible while simultaneously continuing efforts to promulgate the implementing regulations. VA will provide the USH Memorandum to VHA Enrollment and Eligibility staff and VA medical facility directors. This USH Memorandum is a supporting document and is located at http://www.regulations.gov.

How to Apply: Any veteran who wants to apply for new VA health care enrollment can do so by submitting a VA Form 10-10EZ: (1) in-person or by mail to a VA medical facility; (2) by mail to the Health Eligibility Center, 2957 Clairmont Rd., Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30329; (3) online at https://www.va.gov/health-care/how-to-apply/; or (4) by calling 1-877-222-VETS (8387). Veterans enrolled in VA health care who want to apply for an upgrade to their current Priority Group can do so by submitting a VA Form 10-10EZR using any of the four methods described above. Should a veteran receive an enrollment decision with which they disagree, they can appeal the decision with VA.

For more information about the PACT Act and your benefits, access https://www.va.gov/resources/the-pact-act-and-your-va-benefits/ or contact 1-877-222-VETS (8387).

Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved and signed this document on February 23, 2024, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In FR Doc. 2023-28170 of December 28, 2023, the December 2023 final rule (88 FR 89976), there were technical and typographical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting document. These corrections are applicable beginning January 27, 2024, as if they had been included in the December 2023 final rule.

On page 89985, in the first footnote to the table titled, “TABLE 4: Examples, Two-part Increase per Certificate Type”, we inadvertently included incorrect amounts for the current and updated Certificate of Registration (CoR) fees. As stated in the proposed rule that appeared in the July 26, 2022, Federal Register entitled, “Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) Fees; Histocompatibility, Personnel, and Alternative Sanctions for Certificate of Waiver Laboratories”, the correct current CoR fee was $100. With application of the one-time across-the-board (ATB) increase of 18 percent along with the biennial two-part fee increase of 4.9598 percent, the correct updated fee amount is $123.

Similarly on page 90027, in the table titled, “TABLE 17: Two-part Biennial Certificate Fee”, in the Certificate of Registration (CoR) row, we inadvertently included incorrect amounts in the “Current fee” and “New average fee” columns. We are correcting as described previously.

On page 90028, in the table titled, “TABLE 18: CLIA Replacement and Revised Certificates FY 2019”, we made typographical errors in the “Cost of Revised Certificate” entries for the Certificate of Accreditation (CoA) and Certificate for Provider-performed Microscopy (PPM) certificate types. The amounts were reversed in the table. The corrected certificate fees for each of these revised certificate types corresponds to the fees in Table 6, “CMS Proposed Fee for Issuance of Revised Certificate” in the final rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register before the provisions of a rule take effect. Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register .

Section 553(b)(B) of the APA authorizes an agency to dispense with normal rulemaking requirements for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In addition, section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where such delay is contrary to the public interest and an agency includes a statement of support.

We believe this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This document merely corrects technical and typographical errors in the December 2023 final rule but does not make substantive changes to the policies that were adopted in the December 2023 final rule. Instead, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the information in the December 2023 final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that document.

In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the December 2023 final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest to ensure that the December 2023 final rule accurately reflects the policies finalized in that final rule. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our policies, but rather, we are simply correctly implementing the policies we finalized. This final rule correction is intended to ensure that the December 2023 final rule accurately reflects those policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements.

In FR Doc. 2023-28170 of Thursday, December 28, 2023 (88 FR 89976), the following corrections are made:

1. On page 89985, in the first footnote to the table titled, “TABLE 4: Examples, Two-part Increase per Certificate Type”, the language that reads, “Note: The Certificate of Registration (CoR) fee would increase from the $150 to $184.” is corrected to read, “Note: The Certificate of Registration (CoR) fee would increase from the $100 to $123.”

2. On page 90027, in the table titled, “TABLE 17: Two-part Biennial Certificate Fee”, the last row that reads:

3. On page 90028, in the table titled, “TABLE 18: CLIA Replacement and Revised Certificates FY 2019”, rows 4 and 5 that read:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 24-24, adopted on February 15, 2024, and released on February 16, 2024. The full text of this document is available online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-24A1.pdf . The effective date of amendments to § 64.1200(a)(9)(i)(F) and (d)(3), and the addition of § 64.1200(a)(10) and (11) which may contain new or modified information collection requirements under the PRA, will not be effective until six months following review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for such rules and issue a Public Notice once that date has been established.

To request this document in accessible formats for people with disabilities ( e.g., Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) or to request reasonable accommodations ( e.g., accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC”s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).

The Commission sent a copy of document FCC 24-24 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

This document may contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the PRA, Public Law 104-13. This document will be submitted to OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding.

1. In this final rule, the Commission clarifies and strengthens consumers' rights to grant and revoke consent to receive robocalls and robotexts. Specifically, we adopt rules to: (1) make clearer that revocation of consent can be made in any reasonable manner; (2) require that callers honor do-not-call and consent revocation requests within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 business days of receipt; (3) limit text senders to a one-time text message confirming a consumer's request that no further text messages be sent, as well as confirming that any revocation of consent applies only to those robocalls and robotexts for which consent is required. The proposed rule was published at 88 FR 42034 on June 29, 2023.

2. The Commission strengthens consumers' right to revoke consent by any reasonable means by codifying the right and ensuring callers and texters do not unduly restrict it. The Commission believes this will make clearer to callers and consumers that a consumer has a right to revoke consent under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Specifically, the Commission codifies a new rule that will make clear that consumers may revoke prior express consent for autodialed or prerecorded or artificial voice calls and autodialed texts in any reasonable manner that clearly expresses a desire not to receive further calls or text messages, and that callers may not infringe on that right by designating an exclusive means to revoke consent that precludes the use of any other reasonable method.

3. The Commission agrees that further clarification as to the methods that are “reasonable” to revoke consent promotes the interests of both consumers and callers by ensuring that such requests are honored. Specifically, the Commission adopts a new rule that makes clear that any revocation request made using an automated, interactive voice or key press-activated opt-out mechanism on a robocall; via a response of “stop” or a similar, standard response message sent in reply to an incoming text message; or submitted at a website or telephone number provided by the caller to process opt-out requests constitute examples of a reasonable means to revoke consent. If a called party uses any such method designated by the caller to revoke consent, we consider that consent to be definitively revoked by a reasonable means, and future robocalls and robotexts from that caller must be stopped. When the caller offers such a means to revoke consent, that caller cannot allege that the use of such a mechanism by the called party is unreasonable. Any such request made by these specific means constitutes absolute proof that the called party has used a reasonable means to revoke consent.

4. The Commission adopts a standardized list of the specific words that may be used to revoke consent via a reply text message to ensure that automated systems can process such requests. Specifically, the Commission finds that using the words “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe” via reply text message constitutes a per se reasonable means to revoke consent. For purposes of revoking consent via a reply text message, the record confirms that both consumers and the industry commonly use these specific words to convey a reasonable and unambiguous intent to revoke consent. In addition, the record suggests that callers can use automated means to process these words in order to honor revocation of consent requests.

5. This does not preclude, however, the use of other words and phrases to revoke consent. If the reply text contains words or phrases other than those listed above, and should any dispute on this point arise, the text sender, who is responsible for processing the revocation request, will have an opportunity to explain why the consumer's use of alternative words or phrases does not constitute a reasonable means to revoke consent. In these situations, the Commission or the court as the finder of fact will conduct a totality-of-circumstances analysis to determine whether the request to revoke consent has been conveyed in a reasonable manner. Consistent with the 2015 TCPA Order, published at 80 FR 61129 on October 9, 2015, when assessing whether any particular means of revocation used by a consumer is reasonable, the finder of fact will look to the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the specific situation, including, for example, whether the consumer had a reasonable expectation that they could effectively communicate their request for revocation to the caller in that circumstance, and whether the caller can implement the mechanisms to effectuate a requested revocation without incurring undue burdens. The Commission believes this approach balances the ability of consumers to easily stop unwanted text messages with the ability of text senders to reasonably process such requests.

6. Although the Commission confirms that there is no mandate that texting parties transmitting an autodialed text message must provide consumers with any specific means to revoke consent, such as through the use of reply text messages, we caution that this is a reasonable and widely recognized means for text recipients to revoke prior consent to text messages. There may be instances, however, where a text initiator chooses to use a texting protocol that does not allow reply texts. The Commission adopts a rule that, in those instances, requires the text initiator to: (1) provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure in each text to the consumer that two-way texting is not available due to technical limitations of the texting protocol; and (2) clearly and conspicuously provide reasonable alternative ways for a consumer to revoke consent, such as a telephone number, website link, or instructions to text a different number to revoke consent from further unwanted text messages. We recognize that character limits on text messages necessitate that such disclosures will need to be succinct to avoid unduly infringing on the sender's ability to communicate using a text message.

7. The Commission disagrees with commenters who argue that callers should be allowed to designate the specific means to permit consumers to revoke consent and that revocation requests must be directed only to those designated methods. The Commission therefore codifies a prohibition to that end. Allowing callers to limit revocation requests only to the specific means that they have designated potentially places a significant obstacle in the way of consumers who no longer wish to receive such calls by limiting the methods available to revoke consent, which is inconsistent with the consumer privacy protections afforded under the TCPA. In addition, the clarifications set forth herein ensure that consumers have the ability to easily exercise their right to revoke consent while providing callers with a reasonable opportunity to process such requests made in any reasonable way. For example, as discussed below, when the consumer chooses to use a method that has not been designated by the caller to process revocation requests, the caller will have an opportunity to prove why the method used is not reasonable.

8. The Commission also codifies that, when a consumer uses a method other than those discussed above to revoke consent, such as those made by voicemail or email to any telephone number or address at which the consumer can reasonably expect to reach the caller but which has not been designated by the caller as a method to revoke consent, doing so creates a rebuttable presumption that the consumer has revoked consent when the called party satisfies their obligation to produce evidence that such a request has been made, absent evidence to the contrary. We stress that, in the event of a dispute, the consumer must identify to the finder of fact the specific method and/or message used to convey their revocation of consent in order to avail themselves of this rebuttable presumption. As discussed above, in these instances when a consumer has demonstrated that they have made a revocation request, and the caller disputes that the revocation request has been made using a reasonable method, a totality of circumstances analysis will determine whether the caller can demonstrate that a request to revoke consent has not been conveyed in a reasonable manner. The Commission disagrees with commenters who argue this approach is inconsistent with consumers' right to revoke by any reasonable means. The Commission's approach is a means to ascertain whether a consumer has used a reasonable method to revoke consent when the consumer has used a method of their own choosing rather than one established by the calling or texting entity.

9. Lastly, the Commission notes that § 64.1200(c)(2) requires that callers not make “telephone solicitations” to telephone numbers registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry unless the caller has obtained the “prior express invitation or permission” of the called party, in writing. The Commission takes this opportunity to clarify and amend its rules to make clear that consumers who have given their “prior express invitation or permission” to individual sellers to call their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry have the right to revoke consent by any reasonable means. The Commission's precedent confirming the right of consumers to revoke consent to robocalls applies equally to this situation.

10. The Commission requires that callers honor company-specific do-not-call and revocation-of-consent requests for robocalls and robotexts that are subject to the TCPA within a specific timeframe. Specifically, the Commission amends its rules to require that callers honor company-specific do-not-call and revocation-of-consent requests within a reasonable time from the date that the request is made, not to exceed 10 business days after receipt of the request.

11. The Commission will monitor compliance with this obligation to ensure that such requests are honored in a timely manner and reserves the right to adjust this timeframe as necessary in the future as technologies continue to advance, and thereby further reduce the time necessary to process such requests after notice and comment.

12. The Commission revises its proposed 24-hour timeframe in response to commenter concerns that the proposed 24-hour timeframe would not be feasible in many instances. The Commission is persuaded by the record, including comments from consumer organizations, that a longer timeframe is justified to ensure that entities, including smaller entities, have a reasonable opportunity to process do-not-call and revocation requests. The Commission believes this outcome adequately balances the burdens on callers with the privacy protections afforded to consumers, with a “no longer than 10 business days” backstop to ensure that consumers have certainty about when they can expect unwanted communications to stop.

13. The Commission also amends its rules for exempted package delivery calls to substantially reduce the 30-day timeframe to process such requests allowed in its current rules. Specifically, the Commission amends the exemption that allows package delivery notification robocalls and robotexts without consent to require that opt-out requests be honored within a reasonable time not to exceed six business days. The record suggests that this timeframe is sufficient to ensure processing of revocation requests in this specific context. No commenter argues for any other timeframe in this context or objects to this timeframe.

14. The Commission codifies the Soundbite Declaratory Ruling which clarified that a one-time text message confirming a consumer's request that no further text messages be sent does not violate the TCPA or the Commission's rules as long as the confirmation text merely confirms the called party's opt-out request and does not include any marketing or promotional information, and the text is the only additional message sent to the called party after receipt of the opt-out request. Consistent with the Soundbite Declaratory Ruling, if the confirmation text is sent within five minutes of receipt, it will be presumed to fall within the consumer's prior express consent. If it takes longer, however, the sender will have to make a showing that such delay was reasonable, and the longer this delay, the more difficult it will be to demonstrate that such a message falls within the original prior consent. In the Soundbite Declaratory Ruling, the Commission determined that “confirmation messages ultimately benefit and protect consumers by helping to ensure, via such confirmation, that the consumer who ostensibly opted out in fact no longer wishes to receive text messages from entities from whom the consumer previously expressed an affirmative desire to receive such messages.” The Commission agrees with numerous commenters that codifying this ruling will better ensure that both text senders and recipients are aware of this ruling, including the limitations on such one-time confirmation text messages.

15. The Commission also adopts its proposal to codify that senders can include a request for clarification in this one-time confirmation text, provided the sender ceases all further robocalls and robotexts absent an affirmative response from the consumer. The Commission limits this opportunity to request clarification to instances where the text recipient has consented to several categories of text messages from the text sender. Thus, this rule will give consumers an opportunity to specify which types of text messages they wish to no longer get, when the texter sends different types of messages. That request for clarification can seek confirmation that the consumer wishes to opt out of all categories of messages from the sender, provided the sender ceases all further robocalls and robotexts absent an affirmative response from the consumer that they do, in fact, wish to receive further communications from the sender. The lack of any response to the confirmation text must be treated by the sender as a revocation of consent for all robocalls and robotexts from the sender.

16. The Commission adopts this proposal in response to Capital One's petition seeking confirmation that the text sender may request clarification in its one-time confirmation message of the scope of the recipient's revocation request when that recipient has consented to receiving multiple categories of informational messages from the sender. Banks and financial institutions support this request, indicating that consumers often consent to receive multiple categories of informational messages, such as fraud alerts, payment notices, and declined card transactions. In these situations, opt-out requests can be ambiguous as to whether the request applies to all or just certain types of those messages. Consumer groups have also expressed support for Capital One's request, provided that a lack of any response to the confirmation text message must be interpreted by the sender to mean that the consumer's revocation request was intended to encompass all categories of robocalls and robotexts and the sender must therefore cease all further robocalls and robotexts to that consumer absent further clarification from the consumer.

17. Consistent with the Soundbite Declaratory Ruling and Capital One's request, the Commission codifies that any such clarification message must not contain any marketing or advertising content or seek to persuade the recipient to reconsider their opt-out decision. Rather, this clarification is strictly limited to informing the recipient of the broad scope of the opt-out request absent some further confirmation from the consumer that they wish to continue receiving certain categories of text messages from the sender.

18. The Commission emphasizes that this confirmation text message is limited to a final one-time text message. In the absence of an affirmative response from the consumer that they wish to continue to receive certain categories of informational calls or text messages from the sender, no further robocalls or robotexts for which consent is required can be made to this consumer. In addition, a “stop” or similar text sent in response to the one-time request for confirmation does not then allow the text sender to another request for further clarification. As noted above, both industry and consumer groups support this proposal.

19. The Commission clarifies that any revocation of consent request applies only to those robocalls and robotexts for which consent is required under the TCPA. Once that consent is revoked, the caller may no longer make robocalls or send robotexts to a called party absent an exemption to the consent obligation. However, the Commission has granted exemptions from the consent requirement for certain categories of robocalls and robotexts. In these situations, consent is not required for the caller to make or send certain exempted informational robocalls or robotexts. Instead, the caller is required to comply with specific conditions including number and frequency limits of such communications; the caller must also stop such communications only if the consumer makes a request to opt out of the exempted communications.

20. As a result, the rule that the Commission codifies here that requires callers to honor a revocation of consent request made by any reasonable means applies only to robocalls and robotexts that the called party has consented to receive and is separate from the ability of callers to make such informational communications pursuant to an exemption, which do not require consent. Therefore, in effect, when a consumer revokes consent with regard to telemarketing robocalls or robotexts, the caller can continue to reach the consumer pursuant to an exempted informational call, which does not require consent, unless and until the consumer separately expresses an intent to opt out of these exempted calls. Where the consumer has revoked consent in response to a telemarketing call or message, it remains unclear whether the consumer has expressed an intent to opt out of otherwise exempted informational calls absent some indication to the contrary. The Commission agrees with financial institutions' concerns that consumers may inadvertently opt out of exempted informational calls or messages such as fraud alerts when attempting to stop unwanted telemarketing calls from their bank. If the revocation request is made directly in response to an exempted informational call or text, however, this constitutes an opt-out request from the consumer and all further non-emergency robocalls and robotexts must stop. In these circumstances, there is no ambiguity that the consumer's intent is to no longer receive such exempted informational calls from the caller: the opt-out request is a communication from the consumer regarding the exempted informational calls and acts as a revocation of consent for all calls from the caller.

21. The Commission disagrees with commenters that argue the Commission should carve out specific subcategories of informational messages such as fraud alerts, identity theft, and breach notifications and force consumers to revoke consent to these specific categories of informational messages even when the caller chooses not to comply with the conditions of an underlying exemption for such informational messages. The Commission believes this would be burdensome to consumers and unnecessary given the ability of caller to comply with the conditions of an exemption to make such communications in the absence of having consent and the ability to send a confirmation text informing consumers of the scope of their revocation request affording them an opportunity to provide consent for any type of calls or messages that they wish to continue receiving from the caller.

22. Lastly, the Commission takes this opportunity to confirm that, when consent is revoked in any reasonable manner, that revocation extends to both robocalls and robotexts regardless of the medium used to communicate the revocation of consent. For example, if the consumer revokes consent using a reply text message, then consent is deemed revoked not only to further robotexts but also robocalls from that caller. The TCPA requires that the caller obtain the prior express consent of the “called party.” The Commission has long held that the restriction encompasses both voice calls and texts. Consent is granted from a consumer to a calling party to be contacted at a particular wireless phone number or residential line. Revocation of consent, therefore, is an instruction that the caller no longer contact the consumer at that number. As a result, consent is specific to the called party and not the method of communication used to revoke consent. Thus, if a called party has revoked consent via any reasonable means, the caller no longer has consent to make further robocalls or robotexts to that called party absent instructions to the contrary from the consumer.

23. The Commission's legal authority for the rules adopted herein derives from section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). As discussed above, as the expert agency on the TCPA, the Commission has addressed issues relating to prior express consent by robocall consumers on numerous occasions.

24. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, notice of proposed rulemaking, published at 88 FR 42034 on June 29, 2023, released in June 2023 ( TCPA Consent NPRM ). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the TCPA Consent NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

25. The Report and Order clarifies and strengthens the right of consumers to grant or revoke consent to receive robocalls and robotexts under TCPA. Under the TCPA, certain types of calls and texts may only be sent with the prior express consent of the called party. The ability of consumers to exercise this right to provide or revoke consent is essential to protecting the privacy rights of consumers by allowing them to decide which callers may communicate with them via robocalls and robotexts.

26. In addition, the Report and Order codifies prior Commission rulings and adopts new requirements to ensure that the requirements relating to providing or revoking consent under the TCPA are clear to both callers and consumers. Specifically, the Report and Order makes clear that consumers may revoke prior express consent in any reasonable manner that clearly expresses a desire not to receive further calls or text messages, including using an automated, interactive voice or key press-activated opt-out mechanism on a call, using the words “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe” sent in reply to an incoming text message, or pursuant to a website designated by the caller to process opt-out requests. These approaches constitute a reasonable means to revoke consent and that callers may not infringe on that right by designating an exclusive means to revoke consent that precludes the use of any other reasonable method.

27. The Report and Order also requires that callers honor do-not-call and revocation requests within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days of receipt. Further, the Report and Order reiterates that consumers only need to revoke consent once to stop getting all calls and texts from a specific entity. It also codifies that a one-time text message confirming a consumer's request that no further text messages be sent does not violate the TCPA or the Commission's rules as long as the confirmation text merely confirms the called party's opt-out request, does not include any marketing or promotional information, and the text is the only additional message sent to the called party after receipt of the opt-out request.

28. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA. Several commenter did, however, make reference to the potential compliance burdens including the impact on small businesses. Commenters contend that compliance with an obligation to honor revocation of consent requests within 24-hours would be burdensome for small entities.

29. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

30. 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 rules adopted herein. 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 which: (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.

31. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission, 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 SBA's 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.

32. 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 2020, there were approximately 447,689 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.

33. 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 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

34. Telemarketing Bureaus and Other Contact Centers. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating call centers that initiate or receive communications for others-via telephone, facsimile, email, or other communication modes-for purposes such as (1) promoting clients, products, or services, (2) taking orders for clients, (3) soliciting contributions for a client, and (4) providing information or assistance regarding a client's products or services. These establishments do not own the product or provide the services they are representing on behalf of clients. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having $16.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. According to U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017, there were 2,250 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number 1,435 firms had revenue of less than $10 million. Based on this information, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small under the SBA small business size standard.

35. 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.

36. The rules adopted in the Report and Order may result in modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small entities. In cases where consumers invoke their right to grant or revoke consent to small entity callers to receive robocalls and robotexts under the TCPA, these callers may need to implement new methods to record and track such revocation requests to honor them within the specified timeframes. This includes honoring any revocation or do-not-call requests made by any reasonable means including by using an automated, interactive voice or key press-activated opt-out mechanism on a call, using the words “stop,” “quit,” “end,” “revoke,” “opt out,” “cancel,” or “unsubscribe” sent in reply to an incoming text message, or pursuant to a website designated by the caller when those options are provided by the calling party. In situations where a text initiator chooses to use a texting protocol that does not allow reply texts, the text initiator must: (1) provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure in each text to the consumer that two-way texting is not available due to technical limitations of the texting protocol; and (2) clearly and conspicuously provide reasonable alternative ways for a consumer to revoke consent, such as a telephone number, website link, or instructions to text a different number to revoke consent from further unwanted text messages.

37. In addition, callers must process such requests within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days of receipt, and within six business days for package delivery services. This may necessitate small and other entities to update their current systems and processes for handling such requests.

38. There is not sufficient information on the record to quantify the costs of compliance for small entities, or to determine whether it will be necessary for small entities to hire professionals to comply with the adopted rules. The Commission notes that many of the requirements contained in the Report and Order have been adopted in rulings dating back many years or even decades. As a result, the Commission anticipates that many callers, including smaller entities, have already made efforts to comply with these obligations and may have limited new burdens.

39. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rules and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affects the impact on small entities was rejected.”

40. In the Report and Order, the Commission took steps to minimize significant economic impact on small entities and considered alternatives to the adoption of new rules and processes that may impact small entities. In response to commenter requests, the Commission provided greater specificity as to the methods that are deemed reasonable to revoke consent. Taking this step provides callers, including many small entities, with additional guidance regarding the means to comply with our rules. Alternatively, the Commission declined to allow callers to designate the use of specific technologies to permit consumers to revoke consent, such as the use of reply text messages, and grant callers with the flexibility to process revocation requests by any reasonable means. The Commission also modified our proposal requiring that the revocation of consent requests and do-not-call requests must be processed within 24-hours. Rather, in response to concerns from numerous commenters that the 24-hour limitation is not feasible, our amended rules require such requests be honored within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days. This provides callers, including many smaller entities, greater flexibility to process revocation requests that are made via any reasonable means. Without objection, the Commission also amends the exemption that allows package delivery notification robocalls and robotexts, with revocation requests now reduced from 30 business days to requests being honored within a reasonable time not to exceed six business days. In addition to providing certainty to consumers that their requests are being addressed, there were no objections to this timeframe and the record reflects that this provides package delivery companies, some of which are small entities, a reasonable opportunity to process such requests. Finally, the Commission codifies into its rules the ability of callers to send a final, one-time confirmation text in response to a request to opt-out of further messages. This will benefit both callers and consumers by allowing confirmation of the consumer's intent to no longer receive calls or text messages from the caller.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants delisting if it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). The Florida golden aster is listed as an endangered species, and we are delisting it. Delisting a species can only be completed by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ).

What this document does. This rule removes the Florida golden aster from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants based on the species' recovery.

The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The determination to delist a species must be based on an analysis of the same factors.

Under the Act, we must review the status of all listed species at least once every 5 years. We must delist a species if we determine, based on the best available scientific and commercial data, that the species is neither an endangered species nor a threatened species. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e) identify three reasons why we might determine a species should be delisted: (1) The species is extinct, (2) the species does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species, or (3) the listed entity does not meet the Act's definition of a species. Here, we have determined that the Florida golden aster does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species; therefore, we are delisting it.

Please refer to the proposed delisting rule (86 FR 33177) for the Florida golden aster published on June 24, 2021, for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.

A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for the Florida golden aster. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impact of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific review of the information contained in the Florida golden aster SSA report. As discussed in the proposed rule, we sent the SSA report to six independent peer reviewers and received two responses. The peer reviews can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. In preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule. A summary for the peer review comments and our responses can be found in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations below.

In this final rule, we make no substantive changes to our June 24, 2021, proposed rule. Minor, nonsubstantive changes have been made throughout this final rule.

In the proposed rule published on June 24, 2021 (86 FR 33177), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on our proposal to delist the Florida golden aster and the draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan by August 23, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A newspaper notice inviting public comments was published on June 30, 2021, in the Tampa Bay Times. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided during the comment period is addressed below.

As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from two peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. The SSA report was also submitted to our Federal, State, and Tribal partners for scientific review. We received review from two partners. We reviewed all comments we received from the peer and partner reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The reviewers did not raise any substantive issues and provided only editorial comments that we incorporated into the final SSA report, which was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule.

We reviewed all public comments for substantive issues and new information regarding the species. Substantive comments we received during the comment period are addressed below.

(1) Comment: Several commenters stated the species should not be delisted because populations are performing poorly. Multiple commenters pointed to the report titled, “Demographic Data Collection to Assess the Endangerment of Chrysopsis floridana 2020” (Peterson et al. 2020, entire) as supporting their position that the species should not be delisted.

Our response: The report titled, “Demographic Data Collection to Assess the Endangerment of Chrysopsis floridana 2020” (Peterson et al. 2020, entire) was funded by the Service to analyze a subset of known populations and did not look at all known populations. The intent of the effort was to collect data to provide additional information to supplement the 2018 Florida golden aster SSA report. The results of Peterson et al. (2020, entire) reinforce our determination that the Florida golden aster no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species.

The 18 sites for the report were chosen specifically based on aster population size and habitat development risk, which results in increased future management constraints. Eleven of the selected populations were classified as low risk, and the remaining seven were classified as high risk, based on modeling projections in the SSA report (Service 2018, p. 35). Of the 18 populations analyzed for the report, all populations were analyzed for demographic data, and 8 of those also had stage class ( i.e., seedlings, vegetative plants, reproductive plants) data collected. Data were collected over a 3-year period, and annual survival and annual seedling survival were calculated each year. This approach was intended to provide an analysis of the variation in populations across the species' range, looking at population resiliency and habitat management effectiveness. The analysis was a comparison of the populations' metrics between the populations studied but is not comparable to the overall current condition of the species. Stage structure was used as an indirect measure of population health because fecundity data (seed production) were not collected, and full demographic models could not be assembled for the species.

Annual survival was variable among populations and across years. Stage structure (“small vegetative” plants, “large vegetative” plants, and “reproductive” plants) also varied over the 3-year period, with demographically healthy populations having more seedlings and the least healthy populations having more flowering plants. This variation would be expected based on the annual variations in climate conditions over time as well as the phenology of the species. Demographic results indicated moderate annual survival rates for 2017-2018 (75.6 percent) and 2018-2019 (71.8 percent). The annual survival rate for the 2017-2018 populations ranged from 55-91 percent with similar rates of 42-89 percent in 2018-2019. The annual seedling survival (62.0 percent and 64.6 percent, respectively) was slightly lower. The report concluded that at least 6 populations might be considered healthy and self-sustaining, and it may be determined that the other 12 populations (all on protected lands) will fare better in future years given increased management efforts (ideally fire), especially within wild populations.

Variation in survival rates could be attributed to the time since the last fire, habitat management application, and/or age of the mature plant during the study period. Florida golden aster is a short-lived perennial (3-5 years) that flowers multiple years once reproductive. Not knowing the age of the plants being analyzed over the short timeframe in the randomly selected plots could have biased the results, as some of the plants may have been already at the end of their lifespan or not reproductive yet. In addition, consideration of early versus late lifespan productivity or species cycles (phenology), which are currently unknown, may be important factors influencing the analyzed data. The survival rate for this species is described as moderate; the annual survival rates for this aster are adequate for the species and the habitat it occupies (Peterson et al. 2020, entire). Although survival rates varied among introduced and wild populations and varied based on the habitat management status of the population, populations consistently showed seedling recruitment, which is an indication of recruitment in all populations regardless of health conditions.

Based on the most current survey across the species' range (2006-2018), 30 known extant populations, natural and introduced, occur in five counties. Of these, 25 populations occur on 22 protected and managed conservation lands. The post-delisting monitoring plan will utilize baseline data for the populations studied in the report to further assess long-term trends.

(2) Comment: Some commenters stated the species should not be delisted because recovery criteria for delisting have not been achieved.

Our response: Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as well as measureable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available and consideration of the standards listed in 50 CFR 424.11(e) to determine whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless of whether that information differs from the recovery plan. According to the recovery plan there are many paths for this species to be recovered without all the criteria being fully met. The recovery plan states that one or more criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In this instance, we have determined that the threats to Florida golden aster are minimized sufficiently and that the species no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species.

(3) Comment: One commenter indicated delisting was premature because there was no data-driven management plan for the species. The commenter further stated that while short-term monitoring has suggested a role for fire in maintaining populations, critical data are lacking pertaining to the best management practices to maintain Florida golden aster habitat, specifically disturbance dynamics and the optimal fire frequency for managing populations.

Our response: In our June 24, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 33177), we announced the availability of a draft PDM plan for the Florida golden aster, and we requested comments on the draft PDM plan. We also solicited comments on the draft PDM plan from agencies that manage Florida golden aster on their conservation lands, as well as State and county partners that have been engaged in the species' conservation. We received comments from both the Florida Forest Service and Hillsborough County's Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection Program, and their comments were incorporated into the final PDM plan. See Post-delisting Monitoring, below, for more information.

The decision to revise the status of a species, or to delist a species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species. Complete understanding of specific data pertaining to best management practices for Florida golden aster such as disturbance dynamics or the fire return intervals for optimal survival and health, is not a requirement of the Act. Nevertheless, the general response of Florida golden aster to disturbance regimes is sufficiently understood to inform management. The delisting of Florida golden aster should not discourage continued research on the species and its habitat needs. Indeed, the PDM plan includes recommendations for this type of research.

(4) Comment: One commenter noted that growing development surrounding Florida golden aster populations will further complicate fire management, which is important for maintaining suitable habitat. It will become increasingly difficult for many areas where Florida golden aster is present to be managed with fire, and there is little evidence that mechanical disturbance could serve as an effective surrogate for fire.

Our response: The development pressures on native landscapes throughout peninsular Florida are challenging and will continue to persist indefinitely. Habitat management on conservation lands in the wildland-urban interface can experience various constraints. However, not all conservation lands with Florida golden aster populations are subject to these constraints, and development often does not preclude fire management; for example, the national wildlife refuges in Florida frequently conduct prescribed fires despite close proximity to developed areas. Additionally, various treatments and techniques to prepare fuel loads prior to prescribed fire application can also overcome many of these constraints, along with managing the area without the use of fire. New and innovative methods are constantly being developed and employed to accomplish the desired habitat conditions. Best management practices and sound management planning alleviates many of the obstacles land managers encounter when pursing optimal conditions in support of the targeted species.

While the commenter stated that mechanical disturbance is not as effective as fire in maintaining habitat for the Florida golden aster, mechanical treatments can be effective, if deployed correctly. We note in the SSA report that in the absence of fire, habitat openness can be maintained with mowing, hand removal of trees and shrubs near plants, or other mechanical treatments. Populations have persisted along periodically mowed rights-of-way ( e.g., underneath powerlines, along roads and railroads) for decades without a prescribed burn program (Service 2018, p. 12).

(5) Comment: One commenter stated that keeping the species listed will improve the Florida golden aster's chances of recovery, adding that continued listing would provide support necessary to continue research and conservation work for the species.

Our response: We agree that the protections of the Act have helped recover the Florida golden aster, such that it no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Currently, the vast majority of the known populations occur on protected and managed conservation lands and have at least moderate resiliency. Additionally, we expect habitat management for the species to continue, such that these populations will only increase, though this was not relied on for the delisting determination. The Florida golden aster, therefore, is recovered and no longer warrants the protections of the Act, now or in the foreseeable future. Retaining the species on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants would be contrary to the direction of the Act and would continue to draw resources from other species that still need the protections of the Act.

A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and overall viability of the Florida golden aster is presented in the SSA report available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071. A summary of that information is presented here.

Florida golden aster is endemic to xeric (very dry) uplands east and southeast of the Tampa Bay area of central Florida. The historical range of the Florida golden aster is thought to span parts of Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas, Highlands, and Hardee Counties, but the true extent of the historical range is uncertain because the ecosystems on which it occurs were rapidly converted to residential, commercial, and agricultural uses after European settlement of the region. Agriculture began in 1880, with grazing and production of citrus and row crops. Residential and commercial activity began around 1840, mainly in the Tampa Bay area and beach communities through the 1940s and 1950s, but suburban and rural areas started expanding in the 1960s and 1970s and that expansion has continued at a consistent rate. The species was first collected and described from a specimen in Manatee County in early 1901, with subsequent collections in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties in the 1920s. The earliest known Manatee County and Pinellas County populations occurred in coastal areas of Bradenton Beach and St. Petersburg Beach. However, these populations have since been extirpated. The last remaining natural population known to occur in Pinellas County was discovered in 1983; however, a housing development eliminated all available habitat by 1985.

When the species was listed as endangered in 1986 (see 51 FR 17974; May 16, 1986), nine known extant populations of the species occurred in five locations, all coastal, in southeastern Hillsborough County (Wunderlin et al. 1981, entire). Since the listing of the species, increased survey efforts have resulted in the discovery of additional populations, including occurrences farther inland. Many of the newly discovered locations have since been acquired as protected sites with active conservation management activities implemented to improve habitat conditions. As discussed below, introductions have occurred on conservation lands in Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas Counties. It is not known whether these introduction sites were historically occupied by the Florida golden aster or, if so, how long ago they supported natural populations.

Based on the most current surveys across the species' range (2006-2018), 30 known extant populations, natural and introduced, occur in 5 counties (Hardee—4 populations, Highlands—1 population, Hillsborough—16 populations, Manatee—5 populations, and Pinellas—4 populations; figure 1). Populations were delineated using a separation distance of 2 kilometers (km) between occurrences (see Current Condition, below, for more information). Of these, 25 populations occur entirely or mostly on 22 protected sites; a protected site is a site that has been acquired in fee simple and placed into long-term conservation, or that has a conservation easement or other binding land agreement by the site owner that shows a commitment to its conservation in perpetuity. In addition, all protected sites have a management agreement or plan both developed and implemented. None of the lands occupied by the Florida golden aster are federally owned or managed but rather they are owned and managed by a State, local, or nongovernmental entity. The remaining five extant populations occur on private lands or along roadways or railroad lines.

The most recent surveys (occurring between 2006 and 2018) show that just over half of the Florida golden aster individuals occur in nine introduced populations at eight sites. The earliest introductions, a total of 10, were undertaken in 1986; three of those populations remain extant in Hardee and Manatee Counties, while seven other introductions in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties failed. Introductions were again initiated during 2008-2013, when Bok Tower Gardens introduced six additional populations in Hardee, Manatee, and Pinellas Counties, containing 24,825 plants (as of the most recent censuses, with about 12,000 in one population). Four of the six populations contain more than 1,000 plants; the remaining two populations (North and South Duette Preserve) are the most recently introduced populations (2013), have been growing rapidly, and are surrounded by ample habitat and little to no development, so they will also reach sizes comparable to the other introduced populations.

According to the most recent surveys, approximately 50,000 individuals exist with more than 90 percent occurring in the 25 populations located on protected lands. Although this estimate is the best available information, it gives only an approximation of the true current abundance of the Florida golden aster because surveys are not conducted every year and are conducted for different objectives. Moreover, population sizes fluctuate annually. Twelve of the 30 populations had more than 1,000 individual plants present when last observed. We note that a 56-km gap occurs between the easternmost naturally occurring population in Manatee County and the nearest naturally occurring population in Hardee County, and it is not presently known whether this gap is due to the lack of suitable habitat, lack of observation, a long-distance dispersal event, or fragmentation of a formerly continuous distribution.

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, that the species be removed from listed status.

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species or to delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.

There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved without all the criteria in a recovery plan being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the species is robust enough that it no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all the guidance provided in a recovery plan.

We issued the recovery plan for the Florida golden aster on August 29, 1988. The primary objective of the recovery plan was to provide sufficient habitat for the Florida golden aster, both through protection of the sites and proper vegetation management. The recovery plan calls for establishment of new populations of the species. The recovery plan states that reclassification of this species to threatened could be considered if 10 geographically distinct populations are established in its three native counties, and delisting could be considered if 20 such populations are secured (USFWS 1988, p. 3). Currently, Florida golden aster occurs in 30 geographically distinct populations across five counties, 25 are on protected lands, and 18 of these populations have high or very high resiliency (see table 2), which is consistent with the recovery plan's delisting criterion.

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the same day, we issued a final rule that revised 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 (84 FR 44753; hereinafter, “the 20194(d) rule”) and ended the “blanket rule” option for application of section 9 prohibitions to species newly listed as threatened after the effective date ofthose regulatory revisions (September 26, 2019). Blanket rules had extended the majority of the protections (all of the prohibitions that apply to endangered species under section 9 and additional exceptions to the prohibitions) to threatened species, unless we issued an alternative rule under section 4(d) of the Act for a particular species ( i.e., a species-specific 4(d) rule). The blanket rule protections continued to apply to threatened species that were listed prior to September 26, 2019, without an associated species-specific rule. Under the 2019 4(d) rule, the only way to apply protections to a species newly listed as threatened is forus to issue a species-specific rule settingout the protective regulations that are appropriate for that species. Our analysis for this decision applied our current regulations, portions of which were last revised in 2019. Given that we proposed further revisions to these regulations on June 22, 2023 (88 FR 40742; 88 FR 40764), we have also undertaken an analysis of whether the decision would be different if we were to apply those proposed revisions. We concluded that the decision would have been the same if we had applied the proposed 2023 regulations. The analyses under both the regulations currently in effect and the regulations after incorporating the June 22, 2023, proposed revisions are included in our decision file.

The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:

(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C) Disease or predation;

(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could influence a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects. The determination to delist a species must be based on an analysis of the same five factors.

We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.

However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the effects of the threats—considering those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all the threats on the species. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats considering those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.

The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term “foreseeable future” extends only so far into the future as we can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. “Reliable” does not mean “certain”; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.

It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the species' biological response include species-specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and other demographic factors.

The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision on whether the species should be reclassified or delisted under the Act. It does, however, provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.

To assess Florida golden aster viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate changes, pathogen). In general, species viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.

The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all these stages, we used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory decision.

The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0071 on https://www.regulations.gov.

In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability.

For a species to be viable there must be adequate redundancy (suitable number, distribution, and connectivity to allow the species to withstand catastrophic events), representation (genetic and environmental diversity to allow the species to adapt to changing environmental conditions), and resiliency (ability of a species to withstand unpredictable disturbance). Resiliency for Florida golden aster improves with maintained open habitat. Lambert and Menges (1996, pp. 121-137) recommend prescribed burning that mimics the historic burn pattern (frequent low-intensity fires in sandhill, less frequent burns in scrub, with fires primarily in late spring and summer) and periodic mechanical disturbance of the ground cover during late winter or early spring when seeds are dispersed. In the absence of fire, habitat openness can be maintained with mowing, hand removal of trees and shrubs near plants, or other mechanical treatments; populations have persisted along periodically mowed rights-of-way ( e.g., underneath powerlines, along roads and railroads) for decades without a prescribed burn program. Populations must be suitably large and connected to provide a reservoir of individuals for cross-pollination, as plants will not self-fertilize, and to maintain levels of genetic diversity high enough to prevent harmful consequences from inbreeding depression and genetic drift (Ellstrand and Elam 1993, pp. 217-242). Redundancy improves with increasing numbers of populations, and connectivity (either natural or human-facilitated) allows connected populations to “rescue” each other after catastrophes. Representation improves with increased genetic diversity and/or environmental conditions within and among populations.

Viability of the Florida golden aster has been and will continue to be impacted both negatively and positively by anthropogenic and natural influences. Historically, the primary threats to the Florida golden aster were habitat loss (resulting from human development) and habitat degradation due to lack of adequate habitat management. As threats to habitat have been alleviated via habitat protection and management, recovery has been further bolstered by captive propagation followed by introduction into unoccupied sites.

The main threat to this species at the time of listing was the destruction and modification of habitat. Habitat destruction, modification, and degradation on private lands and habitat degradation from lack of adequate habitat management on public lands remain the primary risk factor to the species. The five populations occurring on private lands remain subject to adverse human activity including dumping, off-road recreational vehicles use, and land clearing. However, these activities are no longer threats to the 25 populations on protected conservation lands because of controlled access and restricted use.

Lack of management, especially the absence of periodic fire, historically led to habitat degradation throughout the species' range. The Florida golden aster occurs in open, sandy patches that historically were maintained by fire under natural conditions. Without naturally ignited fires or prescribed fire applications, the habitat becomes overgrown, resulting in unfavorable conditions for the species' persistence. Ideal habitat management is generally regarded as prescribed burning that mimics the historical burn patterns (frequent low-intensity fires in sandhill, less frequent burns in scrub, with fires primarily in late spring and summer) and periodic mechanical disturbance of the ground cover during late winter or early spring when seeds are dispersed (Lambert and Menges 1996, pp. 121-137). Initial burning to restore the openness of degraded habitat involves frequent intense fires, after which burning can be less intense and less frequent to simply maintain the habitat. Failing to maintain open scrub habitat can disrupt the Florida golden aster's reproduction, survival, and dispersal (Lambert and Menges 1996, pp. 121-137).

As with habitat destruction and modification, this threat from lack of management remains a concern mainly on private, non-conservation lands. Populations that occur on conservation lands are often being managed to maintain optimal open scrub habitat. However, budget constraints, manageability, conflicting priorities, and other factors (weather, lack of equipment, staff shortages, etc.) may preclude proper management activities even on conservation lands. Additionally, proximity to urbanized areas can limit the number of days available for prescribed burns, and urbanization in the Tampa Bay area is increasing rapidly (Xian et al. 2005, pp. 920-928). To be optimal, burn days must have wind speeds and wind directions that do not unduly burden urbanized areas with smoke. For this reason, large rural tracts of habitat are easier to burn than small tracts tucked into developed areas. Increasing commercial and residential development could lead to further decreases in the ability to conduct prescribed burning in the future, which may or may not be replaced with adequate habitat management by other means ( e.g., mowing) that are more expensive than using fire. The type of development also factors into management ability and flexibility, with major roads, schools, hospitals, retirement homes (places with vulnerable populations) weighing more heavily on the decision of if/when to burn than other types of development (Camposano 2018, pers. comm.).

Since the time of listing, conservation efforts for the Florida golden aster and other scrub habitat species have reduced the threat of habitat destruction, modification, and degradation. These conservation efforts include acquiring properties where the species naturally occurs, introducing populations on conservation lands, and conducting habitat management on conservation lands ( e.g., prescribed burning). While habitat destruction and modification may still occur on private lands, 83 percent of the sites are on public conservation lands and, therefore, for the most part, are adequately managed and protected. Land acquisitions and introductions have increased the number of established populations within the historical range and have resulted in the expansion of the species' known range. Further, although the species will be delisted under the Act on the effective date of this rule (see DATES , above), the Florida golden aster will remain listed as threatened under State laws. Based on the best available information, we conclude that resources for necessary management activities on conservation lands will continue.

At the time of listing, grazing by domestic livestock was identified as a stressor because the species' populations were on private lands and many of the properties were in cattle production. However, at present, the 25 populations on conservation lands are not subject to any agriculture practices. No cattle grazing occurs on any of these properties. Therefore, we no longer consider grazing to be a threat.

The Florida Administrative Code (FAC) chapter 5B-40 (Preservation of Native Flora of Florida) provides the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services limited authority to protect plants on State and private lands (primarily from the standpoint of illegal harvest). Florida golden aster is listed as an endangered plant under this statute, which requires anyone wishing to willfully harvest, collect, pick, remove, injure, or destroy any plant listed as endangered growing on the private land of another, or on any public land or water, to obtain the written permission of the owner of the land or water or his legal representative (FAC 5B-40.003(1)(a)). A permit is also required to transport for the purpose of sale, selling, or offering for sale any plant contained on the State's endangered plant list that is harvested from such person's own property (FAC 5B-40.003(1)(c)). The delisting of the Florida golden aster under the Act will not affect this State listing.

Several sites, consisting of thousands of plants, are now under county and State protection. Specifically, Hillsborough County has purchased considerable acreage through the Endangered Land Acquisition and Protection Program (ELAPP) that contains several large populations of Florida golden aster. In 1987, Hillsborough County passed the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance that established the foundation for ELAPP. This applies to nine populations on six sites in Hillsborough County. In 1990, this ordinance was amended and approved for another 20 years by increasing county taxes to allow additional funds to acquire conservation lands. In November 2008, voters approved the issuance of up to $200 million in bonds for additional purchases.

ELAPP has worked with the Southwest Florida Water Management District and Florida Forever to jointly fund the acquisition of lands. Some of this money is also used for ELAPP to actively manage their properties to benefit Florida golden aster. Therefore, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms will provide sufficient protections to the species and habitat after delisting, especially on public lands with ordinance protection. Currently, 27 sites where the species occurs are subject to Florida State law. These State and local protections have proven effective. For example, prescribed burning will continue through the ELAPP. Although we acknowledge that this could change in the future, we do not anticipate any future changes to the implementation of these programs at this time.

Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms “climate” and “climate change” are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A recent compilation of climate change and its effects is available from reports of the IPCC (IPCC 2014, entire). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate ( e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with other variables ( e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of climate change.

The IPCC concluded that the climate system is warming (Pachauri et al. 2014, entire). Effects associated with changes in climate have been observed, including changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, and wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (Pachauri et al. 2014, entire). Species that are dependent on specialized habitat types, limited in distribution, or at the extreme periphery of their range may be most susceptible to the impacts of climate change (Byers and Norris 2011, entire; Anacker et al. 2013, pp. 193-210). However, while continued change is certain, the magnitude and rate of change is unknown in many cases and could be affected by many factors ( e.g., weather circulation patterns).

According to the IPCC, most plant species cannot naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and high projected rates of climate change on most landscapes (IPCC 2014, p. 13). Plant species with restricted ranges may experience population declines as a result of the effects of climate change. The concept of changing climate can be meaningfully assessed both by looking into the future and reviewing past changes.

Using the National Climate Change Viewer and using greenhouse gas emission scenario (representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5), we calculated projected annual mean changes from 1981-2010 to those projected for 2025-2049 for maximum temperature, precipitation, soil storage, and evaporative deficit in all counties where Florida golden aster occurs (Adler and Hostetler 2017, entire). We also calculated projected annual mean changes for a more conservative greenhouse gas emission scenario (RCP 4.5) using the same timeframes for maximum temperature, precipitation, soil storage, and evaporative deficit in all counties where Florida golden aster occurs (Adler and Hostetler 2017, entire). Based on these results, all 5 counties within the range of Florida golden aster will be subjected to higher temperatures (annual mean increase of 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (RCP 4.5) or 2.9 °F (RCP 8.5)) and slightly higher precipitation (annual mean increase of 0.1 inch per month (RCP 4.5) or 0.2 inch per month (RCP 8.5)) in the period of 2025-2049 relative to the period of 1981-2010.

Additionally, climate change will likely influence Florida golden aster into the future by affecting habitat suitability and the ability to manage habitat with prescribed fire. Species that are dependent on specialized habitat types, limited in distribution ( e.g., Florida golden aster), or at the extreme periphery of their range may be most susceptible to the impacts of climate change (Byers and Norris 2011, entire; Anacker et al. 2013, pp. 193-210). There is evidence that some terrestrial plant populations have been able to adapt and respond to changing climatic conditions (Franks et al. 2014, pp. 123-139). Both plastic (phenotypic change such as leaf size or phenology) and evolutionary (shift in allelic frequencies) responses to changes in climate have been detected. Given enough time, plants can alter their ranges, resulting in range shifts, reductions, or increases (Kelly and Goulden 2008, pp. 11823-11826; Loarie et al. 2008, p. 2502).

The climate in the southeastern United States has warmed about 2 °F from a cool period in the 1960s and 1970s and is expected to continue to rise (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 396-417). Projections for future precipitation trends in the Southeast are less certain than those for temperature, but suggest that overall annual precipitation will decrease, and that tropical storms will occur less frequently, but with more force ( e.g., more category 4 and 5 hurricanes) than historical averages (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 396-417). Climatic changes, including sea level rise (SLR) and shifts in seasonal precipitation, temperature, and storm cycles, are projected to impact the southeastern United States over the next century. Under both lower and higher emissions scenarios, temperatures are expected to increase (Carter et al. 2018, pp. 751-752), and climate change is expected to intensify the hydrologic cycle and increase the frequency and severity of extreme events like drought and heavy rainfall (Carter et al. 2018, p. 775). Increases in evaporation of moisture from soils and loss of water by plants in response to warmer temperatures are expected to contribute to increased frequency, duration, and intensity of droughts. Local sea level rise impacts depend not only on how much the ocean level itself is increasing, but also on land subsidence and/or changes in offshore currents (Carter et al. 2014, pp. 396-417), and impacts on terrestrial ecosystems can occur via submergence of habitat during storm surges or permanently, saltwater intrusion into the water table, and erosion. Of the current populations of the Florida golden aster, only one (Fort De Soto County Park, Pinellas County) is directly vulnerable to inundation from 0.3 m of sea level rise, a reasonable estimate of sea level rise by 2050. Hotter and drier conditions in the future could lead to fewer days with optimal conditions for prescribed burning, which could lead to reduced habitat quality if land managers are unable to make up for the lack of burning with adequate mechanical treatment.

It is possible that there will be increases in the number of lightning strikes and sizes and severities of resulting fires, which could have a positive or negative effect on specific Florida golden aster populations. Hurricanes similarly could have positive or negative effects on the species. Prolonged flooding could harm populations, but the mechanical disturbance of trees being uprooted from flood events could improve habitat for colonizing species like the Florida golden aster (Menges and Johnson 2017, pers. comm.).

Other potential climate change effects include changes in temperature and precipitation. Projections for future precipitation trends in the Southeast are less certain than those for temperature but suggest that overall annual precipitation will decrease. Hotter and drier conditions may complicate the ability to manage Florida golden aster with prescribed fires. Some terrestrial plant populations have been able to adapt and respond to changing climatic conditions (Franks et al. 2014, entire). Both plastic (phenotypic change such as leaf size or phenology) and evolutionary (shift in allelic frequencies) responses to changes in climate have been detected. Both can occur rapidly and often simultaneously (Franks et al. 2014, entire). However, relatively few studies are available that (1) directly examine plant responses over time, (2) clearly demonstrate adaptation or the causal climatic driver of these responses, or (3) use quantitative methods to distinguish plastic versus evolutionary responses (Franks et al. 2014, entire).

As noted earlier, only one population (Fort De Soto County Park, Pinellas County) is directly vulnerable to inundation from 0.3 meters of sea level rise, a reasonable estimate of sea level rise by 2050. Hotter and drier conditions in the future could lead to fewer days with optimal conditions for prescribed burning, which could lead to reduced habitat quality if land managers are unable to make up for the lack of burning with adequate mechanical treatment. It is possible that there will be increases in the number of lightning strikes and sizes and severities of resulting wildfires, which could have a positive or negative effect on specific Florida golden aster populations. Hurricanes similarly could have positive or negative effects on the species. Prolonged flooding could harm populations, but the mechanical disturbance of trees being uprooted could improve habitat for colonizing species like Florida golden aster (Menges and Johnson 2017, pers. comm.). We have no additional information or data regarding effects of climate change with respect to Florida golden aster populations into the future; further research will be helpful to determine how this species responds directly to changes in temperature and water availability. However, from the known and forecasted information, we anticipate that effects to Florida golden aster from climate change will be limited and will not rise to the level of a threat.

Other influences not discussed in detail here, either because they are not thought to be a major threat or there is little information available, include invasive plant species like cogongrass ( Imperata cylindrica ), and future genetic consequences of small and/or translocated populations.

Many of the stressors discussed in this analysis could work in concert with each other and result in a cumulative adverse effect to Florida golden aster, e.g., one stressor may make the species more vulnerable to other threats.

Synergistic interactions are possible between effects of climate change and effects of other threats, such as mowing, dumping, off-road recreational vehicle use, and land clearing. However, we currently do not have information to determine the likely effects of climate change on interaction/competition between species, or on drought conditions. Uncertainty about how different plant species will respond under a changing climate makes projecting possible synergistic effects of climate change on Florida golden aster speculative. However, the increases documented in the number of populations since the species was listed do not indicate that cumulative effects of various activities and stressors are affecting the viability of the species at this time. Based on our analysis of future stressors, we do not anticipate that cumulative effects will affect the viability of the species in the foreseeable future. Likewise, climate change, as discussed above, with hotter and drier conditions can add additional complexity to future prescribed burns. Available habitat in those tracts that are easier to burn, or that can be managed by other methods ( e.g., mechanical manipulation), will be sufficient. Similarly, most of the potential stressors we identified either have not occurred to the extent originally anticipated at the time of listing or are adequately managed as described above. In addition, we do not anticipate significant stressors to increase on publicly owned lands or lands that are managed for the species.

For the SSA, we delineated populations using a 2-km separation distance rule based on species expert opinion, resulting in 30 populations across five counties. This strategy differs from the 1-km separation distance rule that was used in the most recent 5-year review, which was based on NatureServe's default criteria for defining plant populations (NatureServe 2004, entire). The team of species experts providing input on the SSA suspected that 1 km is likely an underestimate of the distance that gene flow can regularly occur via pollination. While the exact insect pollinators of the Florida golden aster are not known, studies on multiple bee species (major plant and Chrysopsis pollinators) demonstrate foraging distances that regularly exceed 1 km (Greenleaf et al. 2007, pp. 289-296; Hagler et al. 2011, p. 144).

Resiliency refers to the ability of populations to withstand stochastic events, whether demographic, environmental, or anthropogenic. Populations with low resiliency are highly vulnerable to stochastic events and face a high risk of extirpation within the next few decades. Populations with moderate resiliency are less likely to be extirpated within the next few decades, but require additional growth (with help of regular habitat management and/or restoration) to become more self-sustaining and resilient to stochastic events. Populations with high resiliency are unlikely to be extirpated within the next 30 years in the absence of catastrophes or significant declines in the quality of habitat management. Populations with very high resiliency are the most robust and resistant to stochastic fluctuations.

In the SSA, we assessed resiliency for each population using three factors: (1) population size, (2) habitat protection, and (3) area of available habitat. Other factors were considered that likely contribute to population resiliency, but data were not available to assess them over all or most of the populations including certain explicit measures of habitat quality, fire management, existence of land management plans, and population trends. While some past survey data are available for many populations, species experts did not feel comfortable comparing population counts across time periods. In many cases, differences in population sizes were likely not a result of increasing populations, but rather of differences in survey methodology, number of surveyors, and/or areas searched ( e.g., surveyors who were more likely to visit known patches and not find new patches; alternately, a bias toward larger counts over time as old patches are revisited and additional patches are found). Nevertheless, we are confident that these population data demonstrate resiliency of the species. Regardless, this species has not been extensively studied; therefore, there was some uncertainty in the SSA in precisely how these factors influenced Florida golden aster population resiliency.

Population size is both a direct contributor to resiliency and an indirect indicator of resiliency. Small populations are more susceptible to demographic and environmental stochastic events than larger populations. Small populations are also more likely to suffer from decreased fitness because of low genetic diversity from inbreeding or genetic drift (Willi et al. 2005, pp. 2255-2265). For Florida golden aster, large populations are more buffered from the effects of prescribed burning or other disturbances, which are necessary to maintain open habitat but can temporarily reduce population sizes by killing plants. Indirectly, large population sizes are likely indicative of other conditions that contribute to population resiliency. For example, in the SSA, we did not have adequate data to assess habitat quality and the quality of management at all the Florida golden aster populations; therefore, we assumed large population sizes likely generally reflect good habitat quality and management (among other factors) compared to smaller populations, although this assumption may not hold in all cases.

We categorized populations into 4 size classes: fewer than 100 individuals, 100-500 individuals, 501-1,000 individuals, and more than 1,000 individuals. Each population size class was associated with one of the following baseline resiliency classes, respectively: low, moderate, high, and very high (explained further below).

We chose the population size threshold between high and very high resiliency of 1,000 individuals because it is the typical population size used to rank element occurrences as having “excellent viability” and likely to persist for the next 20-30 years (NatureServe 2008, entire). This is a generic population size limit that was not specifically tailored to Florida golden aster with empirical data. Further support for using 1,000 individuals as the threshold for the highest resiliency category came from a study of 10-year extirpation rates for populations of varying sizes of eight short-lived plant species in Germany (Matthies et al. 2004, pp. 481-488). In this study, for seven of eight species, the probability of population persistence increased with population size, and all populations of more than 1,000 individuals (flowering plants) persisted for the duration of the 10-year study.

We obtained the most recent size data for all 30 populations, with data collected as recently as 2018 for some populations, and none older than 2006 for any population. However, population sizes have undoubtedly changed since the most recent surveys, as populations fluctuate in response to management actions, time since management, environmental events, stochastic demographic processes, and so forth. Thus, the reported numbers reflect best available estimates for population sizes, rather than precise counts meant to represent actual current population sizes. According to the SSA report, population sizes include all plants counted, whether flowering or not. Survey data for some populations provide separate counts for each life stage, but for many populations, survey data are simply numbers with no information about whether that number was only flowering plants, or all plants (Service 2018, p. 22). Using total plant numbers, and assuming that ambiguous counts are minimum counts of total plants in each population, we were conservative in our population counts. The alternative of assuming that ambiguous counts are of only flowering adult plants, when they may include basal rosettes, would inflate population sizes in cases where the assumption was wrong.

Habitat was considered “protected” if it was acquired in fee simple and placed into long-term conservation by a nongovernmental, local, State, or Federal entity, or if there is a binding land agreement. Protected sites have management plans developed and being implemented. The effect of the degree of habitat protection on resiliency is discussed below.

Florida golden aster population sizes fluctuate and can occur in high densities in small patches of habitat. However, as a general rule of thumb for a given population size, a population covering a large area will be more resilient than a population covering a small area. A perturbation of the same size will have a proportionally larger effect on small-area populations than large-area populations. In assessing population resiliency, we considered the amount of habitat available rather than the amount of habitat occupied for two reasons. First, the amount of area occupied was very uncertain for most populations. Surveys are likely to return to known patches of the Florida golden aster, but new patches can be easily missed, and it is likely that the data we have underestimates the true amount of area occupied by the Florida golden aster. Adding to the uncertainty, the most current spatial data for some populations comes from 2006, and may no longer reflect the current distribution at those sites. Second, population footprints are not always static across available habitat; the Florida golden aster can spread into unoccupied areas as populations grow, or shift across a landscape as different areas become more or less suitable or both. For this reason, we used the amount of habitat available for populations to occupy currently, grow into, or shift into as a factor contributing to population resiliency. We identified available habitat within a 2-km radius around known occurrences, consistent with the assumption we made about pollinator movement when delineating populations. We characterize the available habitat for populations as small or large, with 14.2 hectares as the threshold between the two groups. This value was selected based on natural breaks in the data and expert input.

Resiliency classes were based primarily on population size as described above, with four resiliency classes corresponding to four population size categories. Populations with fewer than 100 individuals were determined to have low resiliency. Within the three higher population size categories (100-500, 501-1,000, and more than 1,000 plants), populations were assigned a baseline resiliency score associated with their population size (moderate, high, or very high, respectively). This baseline score could then be lowered by either of the two other factors, habitat protection and habitat area available; see table 1 below.

Populations that occur on non-protected lands were assigned to the resiliency class one step lower than they would if they were on protected lands. By doing this, we did not intend to discount the importance of populations on non-protected lands to the viability of the species or imply that owners of these parcels are managing the land poorly or are harming the Florida golden aster. Large populations of Florida golden aster can be supported on private lands. For example, when private landowners burn pasture to improve forage for cattle, they may improve habitat for Florida golden aster. However, even large populations of fire-adapted scrub plants can rapidly decline due to poor management ( e.g., Polygal lewtonii, Weekley and Menges 2012, entire; Warea carteri, Quintana-Ascenscio et al. 2011, entire), and private lands that are not protected for conservation are at higher risk of changes in management or land use that could harm Florida golden aster populations. For populations that extend across property boundaries and contain individuals occurring on both protected and non-protected lands, we used the protection status that applied to most individuals to classify the entire population.

Populations occupying or surrounded by a small area of available habitat were assigned to the resiliency class one step lower than they would otherwise be assigned if they existed within a larger area of available habitat, as they are less able to withstand and recover from perturbations or shift across a landscape as habitat quality changes. For any populations experiencing both resiliency-reducing conditions (small habitat area on non-protected lands), the resiliency score was only reduced one step rather than being reduced twice ( i.e., once for each condition). The Duette populations were the most recently introduced populations. They have been growing rapidly and are surrounded by ample habitat and little to no development; therefore, these two populations were projected to increase from high to very high resiliency.

Summaries of the 30 delineated populations and their resiliency scores can be found in the SSA report (Service 2018, p. 32) and in table 2, below. In conclusion, resiliency scores remained stable.

Redundancy for Florida golden aster is naturally low because it is an endemic species with a narrow range in Florida around the Tampa Bay region and Hardee County farther inland (with one population just across the border in Highlands County). The entire species' range spans five counties, with half of the populations occurring in Hillsborough County (see figure 2, below). The longest distance between two populations is 131 km. However, as this is a narrow-ranging endemic, the spatial distribution of populations across its range does confer a moderate amount of redundancy, defined as the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events. Catastrophic events could include, among others, fires occurring too frequently, droughts, disease outbreaks, or hurricanes with prolonged flooding, each of which have impacts at a different spatial scale. No information is known about seedbank resiliency in the soil for this species; without knowing this, it is difficult to predict long-term impacts of catastrophes.

The 30 known populations are distributed in three main groupings. There are about 20-30 km between each of the groupings, providing a buffer around each that may protect them from catastrophic events affecting the others ( e.g., disease outbreak, depending on transmission type and vectors). Within each geographic cluster, there are at least two highly or very highly resilient populations, which could serve as sources to naturally recolonize populations lost to catastrophic events. The Hardee-Highlands cluster has the lowest redundancy (two moderately resilient populations, six populations total) and is the most isolated from the other clusters. The Pinellas cluster has the next lowest redundancy of resilient populations (3 highly resilient populations, 4 populations total), and the Hillsborough-Manatee cluster has the highest redundancy (13 resilient populations, 20 populations total); see figure 2 below. Another factor contributing to redundancy is the wide range of property ownership; with so many managing entities, the species is buffered against poor management of any one entity ( e.g., due to budget issues or changing priorities). Based on the spatial distribution of resilient populations managed by a variety of entities across a narrow range, current redundancy is considered qualitatively to be low to moderate. Rather than solely relying on this rather subjective classification in assessing the current viability of the species, characterizing current redundancy is most useful in comparison to redundancy under the future scenarios; see Future Conditions discussion below.