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-2024-1700; Project Identifier MCAI-2024-00266-B” 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 Fred Guerin, 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 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for the United Kingdom (UK), has issued UK CAA Emergency AD G-2024-0001-E, dated April 30, 2024 (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on all Lindstrand Technologies Limited hot air balloon envelopes with a date of manufacture after March 2017 fitted with polyester filled Aramid (Kevlar) load tapes. The MCAI states that during a 100-hour annual inspection of a hot air balloon envelope it was discovered that the polyester filled Aramid (Kevlar) load tapes were degraded due to ultraviolet exposure. Both horizontal and vertical load tapes were affected and there was significant distortion to the horizontal load tapes. In addition, in the area where the load tapes loop around the crown ring, the polyester failed completely and exposed the Kevlar core. The Aramid (Kevlar) load tapes were also stretched and frayed. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could compromise the residual strength of the load tapes and the structural integrity of the hot air balloon envelope with consequent loss of control of the hot air balloon. To address the unsafe condition, the MCAI requires doing a visual inspection to determine the date of manufacture of the hot air balloon envelope, and if it is fitted with polyester filled Aramid (Kevlar) load tapes before further flight. If these are found, a 100-percent visual inspection for damage of the polyester filled Aramid (Kevlar) load tapes is required. If no damage is found, operators are required to amend the aircraft maintenance program to include a 100-percent visual inspection of both the horizontal and vertical load tapes before each flight. If damage is found, no further flight is permitted until the damage is rectified.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1700.

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA 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 repetitively checking the hot air balloon envelope for damage and removing any damaged hot air balloon envelope from service. The check required in this AD may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the hot air balloon records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439. The pilot may perform this check because it only involves visually checking the envelope for damage and can be equally performed by a pilot or mechanic. This is an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations.

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 damage to polyester filled Aramid (Kevlar) load tapes degrades the residual strength of the load tapes and the structural integrity of the hot air balloon envelope, damaging the hot air balloon and leading to a forced emergency landing, which could injure balloon occupants and persons on the ground. Because this condition can develop quickly and can only be detected through a visual check, immediate action must be done before further flight. 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 MCAI identifies the design approval holder (DAH) as Lindstrand Technologies Limited, which is the DAH identified on the UK CAA type certificate. This AD identifies the DAH as Lindstrand Balloons Ltd. since this is on the FAA type certificate.

The MCAI requires operators to amend the aircraft maintenance program to include a 100-percent visual inspection of both the horizontal and vertical load tapes before each flight if no damage is found. This AD does not require the amendment to the maintenance program as these before-each-flight checks are required by this AD.

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 277 hot air balloons of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary action that would be required based on the results of the check. The agency has no way of determining the number of hot air balloons that might need this action:

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

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

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

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

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

NOAA is issuing an interim final rule to create three special use areas in the Federal waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuaries in order to protect nursery corals being relocated to cooler, deeper waters, in response to a marine heat wave. All entry will be prohibited in these three areas except for conducting restoration activities under a valid ONMS permit, continuous transit without interruption, and law enforcement purposes. These special use areas will be effective for 60 days after publication of this final rule, and could be extended an additional 60 days. If the special use areas are extended another 60 days, NOAA would publish another document in the Federal Register .

NOAA took similar action last summer, and established a 0.07 square mile temporary special use area approximately five miles southeast of the community of Tavernier Key on the island of Key Largo from September 6, 2023 through January 5, 2024 (88 FR 60887, September 6, 2023). During this time period, nursery coral relocated to this deeper water site experienced double the rate of survivorship as compared to nursery coral that remained at inshore, shallow sites. NOAA also anticipates the potential for a reoccurring marine heat waves in the future summers that will require temporary relocation of coral nurseries. NOAA seeks public comment on a long-term solution to avoid issuing emergency temporary rules in the future to protect temporarily relocated coral nurseries.

The FKNMS regulations at 15 CFR 922.164(e) allows the ONMS Director to set aside discrete areas of the Sanctuary as special use areas in order to provide for, among other uses, the restoration of degraded or otherwise injured sanctuary resources (15 CFR 922.164(e)(1)(ii)). A special use area shall be no larger than the size the ONMS Director deems reasonably necessary to accomplish the applicable objective. No person may enter a special use area designated to carry out a restoration objective except to conduct such restoration activities under a valid ONMS permit, for continuous transit without interruption, or for law enforcement purposes. Activities that are currently allowed in the area, including fishing, will be prohibited.

This action is also taken in accordance with 15 CFR 922.165 of the FKNMS regulations (62 FR 32154, June 12, 1997). Section 922.165 provides that, where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource, any and all activities are subject to immediate temporary regulation, including prohibition, for up to 60 days, with one 60-day extension.

NOAA is establishing three temporary special use areas for the purpose of coral restoration. The sites are as follows: (1) Tavernier Special Use Area is approximately five miles southeast of the community of Tavernier, on the island of Key Largo, within Federal waters of FKNMS; (2) Marathon Special Use Area is approximately 4 miles offshore from the City of Key Colony Beach/Marathon, within Federal waters of FKNMS; and (3) Looe Key Special Use Area is approximately 6.5 miles offshore from Summerland Key, within Federal waters of FKNMS (GPS coordinates for each special use areas are included below).

These special use areas will serve as sites for the temporary relocation of nursery corals to deeper waters to protect the nursery corals from heat stress caused by the anticipated marine heat wave this summer.

Creation of these temporary special use areas will limit the potential for physical impact to this sensitive coral nursery stock from anchoring, unintentional fouling of fishing gear, and bottom tending fishing gear including traps. The ONMS Director has determined that the size of 0.07 square miles for each site is no larger than the size reasonably necessary to protect the coral nursery stock from physical damage. The specific zone areas are 0.068 square miles for Tavernier, 0.066 square miles for Marathon, and 0.069 square miles for Looe Key.

Individual coral practitioners would need to apply for a sanctuary permit to relocate nursery stock to any of the areas. Coral practitioners must also obtain any other necessary Federal permits.

NOAA will provide notice of the location of this area through sanctuary radio announcements and press releases. NOAA has also requested that the U.S. Coast Guard give notification to vessels, via notice to mariners, to remain in continuous transit through this temporary area.

This interim final rule is necessitated by the anticipated marine heat wave this summer that will likely impact and kill coral reefs in the Florida Keys at an unprecedented rate and scale. This action is informed by lessons learned from an emergency rule NOAA promulgated in response to the marine heat wave in the summer of 2023. In 2023, NOAA implemented an emergency regulation to establish a 0.07 square mile temporary special use area approximately five miles southeast of the community of Tavernier Key on the island of Key Largo (88 FR 60887). At the time, the south Florida sea temperatures as reported by NOAA were 35°C, which were the warmest on record. These conditions became unsustainable for coral reef ecosystems in July of 2023 and the extreme ocean temperatures persisted until at least October 2023. The 2023 special use area was in place for an initial 60 days (from September 6, 2023, through November 6, 2023) and was extended by an additional 60 days (from November 6, 2023, to January 5, 2024, 88 FR 75229, November 2, 2023), after which the special use area expired. During this time period, nursery coral relocated to this deeper water site experienced double the rate of survivorship as compared to nursery coral that remained at inshore, shallow sites.

Data shows forecasts for similarly warm waters for 2024, and NOAA anticipates the need for three special use areas to move and protect coral species in this summer of 2024. As in the summer of 2023, NOAA anticipates that a summer heat wave will put at risk coral nursery stock because these are located in shallow, nearshore protected environments that heat up much more than offshore locations. There are currently 14 active coral nursery sites throughout the Florida Keys. These nursery sites are strategically located in close proximity to the sites where the nursery coral will be outplanted to promote coral restoration. Active coral restoration in the Florida Keys is necessary to facilitate coral restoration, as in the last 40 years healthy coral cover in the Florida Keys reefs has declined by more than 90 percent.

While some of the coral nursery stock from these sites may be relocated to land facilities, the capacity of these land-based systems is not adequate to hold the bulk of the biomass. NOAA and restoration partners have identified deep water locations that currently have temperatures below the bleaching threshold, are not exposed to deleterious levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation and experience substantial water movement, all conditions more conducive to coral survival. A portion of the most valuable corals, including representative colonies of each species of boulder and branching corals, samples of elkhorn coral, staghorn coral, star corals ( Orbicella spp. ), pillar corals and cactus coral listed under the Endangered Species Act, as well as multiple representative genotypes of these corals to ensure we protect the genetic diversity of these species, would be relocated to deeper water sites within Federal waters of FKNMS. Temperature meters at these deep sites have consistently shown readings below the bleaching threshold of 30.5 °C.

This emergency action establishes three temporary special use areas to limit the potential for physical impact to this sensitive coral nursery stock that is being grown to support critical sanctuary restoration efforts. Physical impact could result from anchoring, unintentional fouling of fishing gear, and bottom tending fishing gear including traps. The protections afforded by establishing these special use areas need to be in place to avoid further damage to these sensitive nursery corals that have already experienced impact from heat stress. As such, establishment of these special use areas is necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of, or injury to sanctuary resources.

This interim final rule establishes three special use areas, each approximately 0.07 square miles in size, into which all entry will be prohibited except for conducting restoration activities under a valid ONMS permit, continuous transit without interruption, and law enforcement purposes. These special use areas will be effective for 60 days after publication of this final rule, and could be extended an additional 60 days. If the special use areas are extended another 60 days, NOAA would publish another document in the Federal Register .

Through this interim final rule, NOAA establishes three special use areas subject to temporary access and use restrictions for a period no longer than 60 days, with up to one 60 day extension. In these special use areas for restoration, all entry will be prohibited except for conducting restoration activities under a valid ONMS permit, continuous transit without interruption, and law enforcement purposes, in accordance with § 922.164(e)(3). The coordinates for each temporary special use area are provided in appendix VI to subpart P of part 922 (below).

The first of these special use areas was created in 2023 with a final temporary rule (88 FR 60887, September 6, 2023), and proved to be a very good temporary location for moving the coral nursery stock given that there was double the survivorship of nursery coral relocated to this deeper water site as compared to nursery coral that remained at inshore, shallow sites. It is approximately five miles southeast of the community of Tavernier, on the island of Key Largo.

The second area is located within Federal open waters of the Atlantic Ocean, approximately four miles offshore from the City of Key Colony Beach/Marathon.

The third area is located within Federal open waters of the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 6.5 miles offshore from Summerland Key. Looe Key Special Use Area includes within its boundary one mooring buoy that is used by private individuals or diving and fishing charter operators, which will become unavailable for these uses while the temporary special use area restrictions are in place. This is one of 47 total mooring buoys in the vicinity of Looe Key, representing 2% of the total mooring buoy availability in this area (or 0.22% of all mooring buoys available throughout the sanctuary). Currently within this area anchoring is prohibited on living coral other than hardbottom in water depths less than 40 feet when visibility is such that the seabed can be seen (15 CFR 922.163(a)(5)(ii)), and in Looe Key Sanctuary Preservation Area, anchoring is prohibited if a mooring buoy is available or if conducted anywhere other than a designated anchoring area when such areas have been designated and are available (15 CFR 922.164(d)(1)(vi)).

Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1437(d)(1) and 15 CFR 922.8(a), any person who violates this rule is subject to a civil penalty. The maximum civil monetary penalty authorized under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) has been adjusted for inflation over time and is currently $216,972 per violation per day. See 15 CFR 6.3(f)(13). Furthermore, NMSA also authorizes an action in rem against any vessel used in violation of this regulation. See 16 U.S.C. 1437(d)(3).

While NOAA requests comments on all aspects of this rule, NOAA is particularly interested in receiving comments on establishing permanent special use areas where use and access restrictions would be applied on an as-needed, temporary basis for the relocation of coral nursery stock to cooler waters in summer seasons when extremely warm water and high likelihood of bleaching events are anticipated. NOAA would notify the public whenever the restrictions are in place in a Federal Register notice and by other means, such as sanctuary radio announcements, press releases, and a Notice to Mariners.

This action is issued pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. 1431, et seq. and implementing regulations at 15 CFR part 922. This action is being taken pursuant to the emergency provision of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary regulations at 15 CFR 922.165.

NOAA's Policy and Procedures for Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Related Authorities (NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A and Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A) provide that all NOAA major Federal actions be reviewed with respect to environmental consequences on the human environment. Based on the NAO and Companion Manual, NOAA examined the interim final rule for its potential to impact the quality of the human environment and concluded that it is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the NOAA Categorical Exclusion C1, as a habitat restoration action (see Appendix E of the NOAA NEPA Companion Manual). It qualifies for this categorical exclusion provided that such action: (1) transplants only organisms currently or formerly present at the site or in its immediate vicinity (if transplant is a component of the action); (2) does not require substantial placement of fill or dredging; (3) does not involve any removal of debris, excavation, or conditioning of soils unless such removal of debris, excavation, or conditioning of soils is geographically limited to the impact area such that site conditions will not impede or negatively alter natural processes, is in compliance with all permit and disposal requirements, and will not impact critical aquifers or recharge areas; and (4) does not involve an added risk of human or environmental exposure to toxic or hazardous substances, pathogens, or radioactive materials. In considering the list of extraordinary circumstances, NOAA determined that none would be triggered by this emergency action. Therefore, NOAA concludes that this action will not result in significant effects to the human environment and is categorically excluded from the need for further NEPA review.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this emergency rule is not significant within the meaning of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

This emergency rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the rule will not include prior notice or an opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or other law. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean Service, NOAA finds good cause to waive notice and public comment as it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Impacts from an anticipated marine heat wave are expected to result in immediate and large-scale impact to the coral reef ecosystems in the Florida Keys as early as July 2024, with greatest risk to the most sensitive coral nursery stock located at several permitted sites throughout the Florida Keys. Coral nursery sites are established throughout the Florida Keys and are essential in supporting coral restoration efforts due to the loss of healthy coral cover in the Florida Keys reefs that has declined by more than 90 percent in the last 40 years. While some of the coral nursery stock is being relocated to land-based sites, some coral nursery sites are being moved to offshore and deeper areas with cooler waters. It is possible that humans entering the waters of the offshore areas where these coral nursery stock are being relocated could inadvertently cause irreparable damage from anchoring and/or dropping or entangling fishing gear in the coral nursery structures. Establishment of these three special use areas will prohibit all entry except to conduct restoration activities under a valid ONMS permit, for continuous transit without interruption, and for law enforcement purposes. The protections afforded by establishing these three special use areas need to be in place to avoid further damage to these sensitive nursery corals that have already experienced impact from heat stress. As such, further damage to these sensitive nursery corals would occur if the prohibition implemented by this rule is delayed to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment. For the reasons outlined above, NOAA finds it impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice and public comment on these emergency measures. For the same reasons, NOAA finds good cause to waive the delay in the effective date of this rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

However, NOAA will collect public comments for thirty days after publication of this interim final rule.

For the reasons set forth above, NOAA amends part 922, title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

In EFR Doc. 2024-11116, appearing on page 47688 in the Federal Register of Monday, June 3, 2024, the following corrections are made:

On April 19, 2024, the Department of Justice published a direct final rule in the Federal Register at 89 FR 28622 that conformed ATF's regulatory language to firearms-related definitions and requirements established by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (Pub. L. 117-159) (BSCA) and the NICS Denial Notification Act (Pub. L. 117-103). During the 30-day comment period, the Department did not receive a significant adverse comment, as defined in section IV.A of the preamble of the direct final rule. 1 See 89 FR 28629. Accordingly, the direct final rule as published on April 19, 2024, will go into effect on July 18, 2024, with the only changes being the corrections made in this document.

The direct final rule published on April 19, 2024, in the Federal Register at 89 FR 28622, inadvertently contained some minor technical errors in the regulatory instructions and text that this document corrects. This document corrects errors in amendatory instruction 2 for § 478.11. That instruction incorrectly redesignated paragraph (c) under the definition of “Misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as paragraph (iii) but should have redesignated it as paragraph (3), and incorrectly designated a new paragraph as (iv) that should have been designated as paragraph (4), as well as incorrectly designating its lower-level paragraphs in the regulatory text. This document corrects those designation errors in the instructions, and also corrects three cross-references within paragraphs (4)(i) and (iii) to reflect these new designations. The regulation also inadvertently left out the phrase in section 12005(b) of the BSCA (18 U.S.C. 921 note) stating that the new provisions in paragraph (4) do not apply to any conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence entered before the date of enactment of the BSCA. This document corrects that error by adding the missing phrase “if the conviction was entered before June 25, 2022” to paragraph (4)(i). This document corrects instructions and the correlating regulatory text ahead of the July 18, 2024, effective date of the April 19, 2024 rule.

Accordingly, in the direct final rule FR Doc. No. 2024-08339, appearing on page 28622 in the Federal Register of Friday, April 19, 2024, the following corrections are made:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.801, table 5 to § 165.801, item 15 for the Madisonville Old Fashioned 4th of July fireworks display event. This safety will be enforced from 8:30 through 9 p.m. on July 4, 2024. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for annual fireworks displays and other events in Sector New Orleans Annual and Recurring Safety Zones in § 165.801, table 5 to § 165.801, item 15, specifies the approximate location of the regulated area on the Tchefuncte River, in front of the Madisonville Town Hall. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.801(a), entry into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via Marine Safety Information Bulletin and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish safety zones by June 22, 2024. The Motor Vessel (M/V) BIGLIFT BAFFIN will be transiting through the Savannah River to Georgia Port Authority Ocean Terminal Berth No. 3 while carrying large intermodal cranes, and for the offloading of those intermodal cranes to the facility. Immediate action is necessary to protect the safety of the public, and vessels transiting the waters of the Savannah River during the planned movement and obstruction created by oversized cranes.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the potential hazards associated with the transit and offload of intermodal cranes from M/V BIGLIFT BAFFIN.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Savannah (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the transit and offload of intermodal cranes from M/V BIGLIFT BAFFIN scheduled for June 22, 2024 through July 13, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of the vessel. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zones while the vessel is transiting the Savannah River and offloading intermodal cranes.

This rule establishes two temporary safety zones from June 22, 2024 through July 13, 2024. A moving and fixed temporary safety zone will be established for the vessel M/V BIGLIFT BAFFIN while it is in the Savannah River and would cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the vessel, up to Georgia Port Authority Ocean Terminal Berth No. 3, and during offload of the intermodal cranes. The moving temporary safety zone would only be enforced while the vessel is transiting, and the fixed temporary safety zone will be enforced while it is discharging the intermodal cranes. This safety zone may last until July 13, 2024, but it will not be enforced after all the intermodal cranes have been removed from the vessel. The safety zones are needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the movement and obstruction hazard of four oversized intermodal cranes transiting the Savannah River, and when the vessel is moored to Georgia Port Authority Ocean Terminal Berth No. 3. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location and scope of the safety zones. The safety zones are limited in size, location, and duration as it will cover all navigable waters of the Savannah River within 500 yards of the M/V BIGLIFT BAFFIN while it is underway with cranes onboard, and while it is moored to the terminal, and discharging its cargo. The safety zones are limited in scope as vessel traffic may be able to safely transit around the safety zones and vessels may seek permission from the COTP to enter the safety zones. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A., above, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves safety zones within 500 yards of M/V BIGLIFT BAFFIN during transit and offload of cranes. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by July 8, 2024, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with a demolition of a lock and dam.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the demolition starting on July 8, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone on the Monongahela River within mile marker 23.5 through 24.5. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

The COTP is establishing a safety zone from July 8, 2024, through July 31, 2024. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile marker 23.5 and mile marker 24.5 on the Monongahela River in Elizabeth, PA. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled initial demolition of Locks and Dam No. 3 at mile marker 23.8 on the Monongahela River. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. This safety zone impacts only a one mile stretch of the Monongahela River starting July 8, 2024, at 4 a.m., through July 31, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. Vessel traffic will be informed about the safety zone through local notices to mariners. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), via VHF-FM marine channel 13 or 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP to transit the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L.104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that impacts only a one mile stretch of the Monongahela River starting July 8, 2024, at 4 a.m., through July 31, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 (a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce regulations in 33 CFR 165.1332 for the following safety zones established for Annual Fireworks Displays within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility. These regulations will be enforced from 5 p.m. through 1 a.m., daily, on July 3, 2024 through July 4, 2024, at the following locations:

The special requirements listed in 33 CFR 165.1332(b) apply to the activation and enforcement of these safety zones. All non-participants are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or their designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

The Coast Guard will issue advanced notification of enforcement of these safety zones via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce the following safety zones in 33 CFR 165.939 as listed in Table 165.939:

(1) Village Fireworks, Sodus Point, NY; The safety zone listed in (b)(22) will be enforced on all U.S. waters of Sodus Bay within a 560 foot radius of land position 43°16′33″ N, 076°58′27″ W in Sodus Point, NY from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 3, 2024.

(2) North Tonawanda Fireworks, North Tonawanda, NY; The safety zone listed in (b)(25) will be enforced on all U.S. waters of the East Niagara River within a 560 foot radius of land position 43°01′47.60″ N, 078°53′14.83″ W in North Tonawanda, NY from 8:45 p.m. through 11:15 p.m. on July 5, 2024.

(3) Tonawanda's Canal Fest Fireworks, Tonawanda, NY; The safety zone listed in (b)(26) will be enforced on all U.S. waters of the East Niagara River within a 175 foot radius of land position 43°01′17.8″ N, 078°52′40.9″ W in Tonawanda, NY from 9:15 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. on July 21, 2024.

This Notice of Enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Eastern Great Lakes or their designated representative; designation need not be in writing. Those seeking permission to enter these safety zones may request permission from the Captain of the Port Eastern Great Lakes via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Eastern Great Lakes or their designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

In addition to this Notice of Enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement periods via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other suitable means. If the Captain of the Port Eastern Great Lakes determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, they may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone. This notification is being issued by the Coast Guard Sector Eastern Great Lakes Prevention Department Head at the direction of the Captain of the Port.

On October 10, 2023, the Coast Guard was notified of an air show that will take place over the waters of Lake Superior near Canal Park in Duluth, MN from 3 p.m. through 6 p.m. on July 31, 2024. During this air show, planes will be flying low over the water within the boundary of a zone marked by buoys and small boat on scene. Hazards from this air show include low flying aircraft and jet exhaust produced by the engines and distraction to the pilots if general boating traffic where to be present within this area. The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Duluth (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the air show at this location would be a safety concern for anyone within an area defined by the following positions, beginning at N 46°47′34.81″, W 092°03′46.70″, then proceeding southwest to N 46°46′52.73″, W 092°05′05.47″, then proceeding southwest to N 46°46′48.00″, W 092°05′28.02″, the following the shoreline northward to N 46°48′1.98″, W 092°04′16.02″, and then returning to the starting point. In response, on May 7, 2024, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; 2024 Duluth Air Spectacular, Lake Superior, Duluth, MN 89 FR 38854). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended June 8, 2024, we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The COTP Marine Safety Unit Duluth has determined that potential hazards associated with the air show at this location would be a safety concern for anyone within an area defined by the following positions, beginning at N 46°47′34.81″, W 092°03′46.70″, then proceeding southwest to N 46°46′52.73″, W 092°05′05.47″, then proceeding southwest to N 46°46′48.00″, W 092°05′28.02″, the following the shoreline northward to N 46°48′1.98″, W 092°04′16.02″, and then returning to the starting point and is establishing a safety zone for this area on July 31, 2024 from 12 p.m. through 9 p.m. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published May 7, 2024. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 12 p.m. through 9 p.m. on July 31, 2023. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Lake Superior near Canal Park in Duluth, MN within an area defined by the following positions, beginning at N 46°47′34.81″, W 092°03′46.70″, then proceeding southwest to N 46°46′52.73″, W 092°05′05.47″, then proceeding southwest to N 46°46′48.00″, W 092°05′28.02″, the following the shoreline northward to N 46°48′1.98″, W 092°04′16.02″, and then returning to the starting point. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled air show to begin sometime between 3 p.m. through 6 p.m., depending on weather conditions. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based the short duration and small size of the safety zone as well as the ability for most boats to transit between the Duluth Shipping Canal and Lake Superior without entering the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting not more than 9 hours that would prohibit entry within an area under the flight path of aircraft participating in an air show. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in 33 CFR 165.801, table 5 to § 165.801, item 3 for the Go 4th New Orleans Independence Day Celebration fireworks display event. This safety zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2024. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for annual fireworks displays and other events in the Sector New Orleans Annual and Recurring Safety Zones in § 165.801, table 5 to § 165.801, item 3, specifies the location of the regulated area on the Lower Mississippi River, between mile marker (MM) 94.3 and MM 95.3. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.801(a), entry into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via a Marine Safety Information Bulletin and/or Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended November 15, 1990, authorizes EPA to delegate authority to implement and enforce the standards set out in 40 CFR parts 61 and 63, NESHAPs. On April 11, 1980, EPA initially delegated the authority to implement and enforce the 40 CFR part 61 NESHAP program to TDEC-APC (46 FR 29330). On July 29, 1996, EPA approved TDEC-APC's use of the EPA's case-by-case and automatic mechanisms for future delegations of authority for 40 CFR parts 61 and part 63 NESHAPs, respectively. See 61 FR 39355.

On March 9, 2023, EPA received a letter from TDEC-APC which requested to update the method of delegations and continue the delegations of authority to implement and enforce Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, part 61, NESHAPs, and part 63, NESHAPs for Source Categories. For part 61 NESHAPs, TDEC-APC requested to change the delegation mechanism from “case-by-case” to “adopt-by-reference.” For part 63 NESHAPs, TDEC-APC requested to change the delegation mechanism from “automatic” to “adopt-by-reference.”

With these NESHAPs and NESHAPs for Source Categories delegation mechanisms in place, once a new or revised NESHAP or NESHAP for Source Categories is promulgated by the EPA, delegation of authority from the EPA to the TDEC-APC will become effective on the date the NESHAP is adopted into State rules by TDEC-APC. No further State requests for delegation will be necessary. Likewise, no further Federal Register notifications will be published. EPA continues to retain authority to implement the Federal NESHAP and NESHAP for Source Categories directly and continues to retain concurrent enforcement authority. EPA is providing notice that it approved TDEC-APC's request on February 26, 2024.

After a thorough review of the request, the Regional Administrator has determined that the laws, rules, and regulations for the State agency provide an adequate and effective procedure for implementation and enforcement of parts 61 and 63 NESHAPs. EPA, therefore, hereby notifies the public that it has approved the adopt-by-reference delegation mechanism for delegation of the part 61 NESHAP and part 63 NESHAPs for Source Categories. This approval became effective on February 26, 2024. A copy of EPA's letter approving TDEC-APC's request, with enclosures, is available at Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2024-0141 at https://www.regulations.gov.

In FR Doc. 2024-08363 of May 10, 2024 (89 FR 40542), there were technical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting document. These corrections are applicable as if they had been included in the Access final rule, which is effective July 9, 2024. Accordingly, the corrections are effective July 9, 2024.

On page 40550, in Table 1: Provisions and Relevant Timing Information and Dates, we made errors listing the applicability dates and did not include all of the regulatory citations for the table rows that referenced the Medicaid Advisory Committee & Beneficiary Advisory Council § 431.12.

On pages 40556, 40557, and 40565, we made errors listing the applicability dates.

On page 40570, we made minor technical and typographical errors, including cross-references to regulatory citations and a preamble section.

On page 40577, we made typographical errors in regulatory citations.

On page 40578, we made a typographical error in a Federal Register reference.

On page 40580, we made a typographical error when discussing a modification to regulatory language.

On page 40586, we made a typographical error in a regulatory citation.

On page 40587, we made a typographical error when discussing a modification to regulatory language.

On page 40594, we erroneously included an incorrect statement related to formatting when discussing a modification to regulatory language.

On page 40596, we made a typographical error when discussing a modification to regulatory language.

On page 40599, we made typographical errors in references to a preamble section number and a regulatory citation.

On page 40611, we made typographical errors in a statutory citation and a regulatory citation.

On page 40614, we made a typographical error in a statutory citation.

On page 40615, we erroneously included the incorrect Federal Register citation.

On page 40616, we made minor technical errors in discussing a modification to regulatory language, including inadvertently omitting a regulatory citation.

On page 40619, we erroneously omitted a word in a policy statement.

On pages 40624, 40627, 40633, and 40640, we made typographical errors in regulatory citations.

On page 40643, we made a typographical error in a summary of regulatory language we finalized.

On page 40646, we made a typographical error in a regulatory citation.

On page 40650, we made a typographical error in a reference to a preamble section.

On pages 40653, 40660, and 40661, we made typographical errors in regulatory citations.

On page 40662, we erroneously omitted a word and made a typographical error in a regulatory citation.

On page 40671, we made typographical and minor technical errors when discussing regulatory language we finalized.

On page 40673, we made typographical errors in regulatory citations.

On page 40675, we made typographical errors in a regulatory citation and in references to preamble sections.

On page 40727, we erroneously omitted words when discussing publication requirements.

On page 40858, in the table titled “TABLE 48: Accounting Table,” we inadvertently included incorrect summary figures in the table.

On page 40862, in the regulation text for § 431.12(d)(1), we listed incorrect applicability dates.

On page 40863, in amendatory instruction 5, we inadvertently noted the changes to § 438.72 incorrectly.

On page 40869, in the regulation text for § 441.312(c)(3)(iv), we made a typographical error.

On page 40869, in the regulation text for § 441.312(g), we made a typographical error in a cross-reference.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register before the provisions of a rule take effect. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA mandates a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a substantive rule. Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the APA notice and comment, and delay in effective date requirements. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA authorizes an agency to dispense with normal notice and comment rulemaking procedures for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and includes a statement of the finding and the reasons for it in the rule. Similarly, section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where good cause is found and the agency includes in the rule a statement of the finding and the reasons for it. In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements.

This document corrects technical errors in the Access final rule. The corrections contained in this document are consistent with, and do not make substantive changes to, the policies that were proposed, subject to notice and comment procedures, and adopted in the Access final rule. As a result, the corrections made through this correcting document are intended to resolve inadvertent errors so that the rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in the final rule. Even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment 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 Access final rule or delaying the effective date of the corrections would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public interest to ensure that the rule accurately reflects our policies as of the date they take effect. Further, such procedures would be unnecessary because we are not making any substantive revisions to the final rule, but rather, we are simply correcting the Federal Register document to reflect the policies that we previously proposed, received public comment on, and subsequently finalized in the final rule. For these reasons, we believe there is good cause to waive the requirements for notice and comment and delay in effective date.

In FR Doc. 2024-08363 of May 10, 2024 (89 FR 40542), make the following corrections:

1. On page 40550, Table 1: Provisions and Relevant Timing Information and Dates, under Medicaid Advisory Committee (MAC) & Beneficiary Advisory Council (BAC) § 431.12, the second column, rows 1 through 3, which read:

2. On page 40556, second column, first full paragraph, lines 17 through 28, the sentence that reads:

“Instead of the 25 percent minimum threshold coming into effect right away, we are revising this final rule to provide in § 431.12(d)(1) that, for the period from July 9, 2024 through July 9, 2025, 10 percent of the MAC members must come from the BAC; for the period from July 10, 2025 through July 9, 2026 20 percent of MAC members must come from the BAC; and thereafter, 25 percent of MAC members must come from the BAC.”

“Instead of the 25 percent minimum threshold coming into effect right away, we are revising this final rule to provide in § 431.12(d)(1) that, for the period from July 9, 2025 through July 9, 2026, 10 percent of the MAC members must come from the BAC; for the period from July 10, 2026 through July 9, 2027, 20 percent of MAC members must come from the BAC; and thereafter, 25 percent of MAC members must come from the BAC.”

3. On page 40557, first column, second bullet in the second full paragraph, lines 1 through 13, the sentences that read:

“Replacing the language at § 431.12 (d)(1) to clarify the timeframe for States to reach 25 percent of MAC members coming from the BAC. The new sentence will now read, “For the period from July 9, 2024 through July 9, 2025, 10 percent of the MAC members must come from the BAC; for the period from July 10, 2025 through July 10, 2026 20 percent of MAC members must come from the BAC; and thereafter, 25 percent of MAC members must come from the BAC.”

“Replacing the language at § 431.12 (d)(1) to clarify the timeframe for States to reach 25 percent of MAC members coming from the BAC. The new sentence will now read, “For the period from July 9, 2025 through July 9, 2026, 10 percent of the MAC members must come from the BAC; for the period from July 10, 2026 through July 10, 2027, 20 percent of MAC members must come from the BAC; and thereafter, 25 percent of MAC members must come from the BAC.”

4. On page 40565, second column, first full paragraph, lines 9 through 18, the sentences that read:

“The finalized provision at § 431.12(d)(1) will require that, for the period from July 9, 2024 through July 9, 2025, 10 percent of the MAC members must come from the BAC; for the period from July 10, 2025 through July 9, 2026, 20 percent of MAC members must come from the BAC; and thereafter, 25 percent of MAC members must come from the BAC.”

“The finalized provision at § 431.12(d)(1) will require that, for the period from July 9, 2025 through July 9, 2026, 10 percent of the MAC members must come from the BAC; for the period from July 10, 2026 through July 9, 2027, 20 percent of MAC members must come from the BAC; and thereafter, 25 percent of MAC members must come from the BAC.”

5. On page 40570,

a. Second column, second full paragraph, lines 8 through 22, the sentences that read:

“This statement was published in error, and we did not intend to propose this specific regulation text include reference to § 438.208(c). We note that § 438.208(c)(3)(v) already requires that managed care plans comply with § 441.301(c)(3), generally, so we believe that referencing § 438.208(c) is not necessary. We also note that § 438.208(c)(3)(ii) requires compliance with the other person-centered planning requirements at § 441.301(c)(1) and (2). Thus, also referring to § 438.208(c) would be unnecessary.”

“This statement was published in error, and we did not intend to propose to add requirements at § 441.301(c)(3) to this specific regulation text at § 438.208(c). We note that § 438.208(c)(3)(v) already requires that managed care plans comply with § 441.301(c)(3), generally, so we believe that adding the requirements at § 441.301(c)(3) to § 438.208(c) is not necessary. We also note that § 438.208(c)(3)(ii) requires compliance with the other person-centered planning requirements at § 441.301(c)(1) and (2). Thus, also adding the requirements at § 441.301(c)(3) to § 438.208(c) would be unnecessary.”.

b. In the third column, second full paragraph, line 17, the section reference that reads, “II.B.11” is corrected to read, “II.B.10”.

6. On page 40577, second column, first full and non-bulleted paragraph,

a. Line 16, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 441.301(c)(4)(ii)” is corrected to read “§ 441.301(c)(4)(iii)”.

b. Line 27, the regulatory citation that reads “(v)(B)” is corrected to “(vi)(B)”.

7. On page 40578, third column, first partial paragraph, lines 3 through 4, the Federal Register reference that reads “(88 FR 28080)” is corrected to “(88 FR 27976).”

8. On page 40580, third column, third full paragraph, lines 1 through 6, the paragraph that reads “We are finalizing § 441.301(c)(7)(iii)(B)( 1 ) with a modification to correct an erroneous reference to subchapter in the regulatory language and replace subchapter with paragraph (c)(7)” is corrected to read “We are finalizing § 441.301(c)(7)(iii)(B)( 1 ) with a modification to correct an erroneous reference to subsection in the regulatory language and replace subsection with paragraph (c)(7).”.

9. On page 40586, first column, first partial paragraph, line 17, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 441.301(c)(7)(iii)(C)( 3 )( ii )” is corrected to read “§ 441.301(c)(7)(iii)(C)( 3 )( iii )”.

10. On page 40587, third column, last paragraph, lines 3 through 7, the sentence that reads “We are finalizing § 441.301(c)(7)(iii)(B)( 1 ) with a modification to correct an erroneous reference to subchapter by replacing subchapter with paragraph (c)(7).” is corrected to read “We are finalizing § 441.301(c)(7)(iii)(B)( 1 ) with a modification to correct an erroneous reference to subsection by replacing subsection with paragraph (c)(7).”.

11. On page 40594, first column, last paragraph, line 16, the sentence that reads “(New text in bolded font.)” is deleted.

12. On page 40596, in the third column, third full bulleted paragraph, lines 1 through 5, that reads “We are finalizing § 441.301(c)(7)(iii)(B)( 1 ) with a modification to correct an erroneous reference to subchapter by replacing subchapter with paragraph (c)(7).” is corrected to read “We are finalizing § 441.301(c)(7)(iii)(B)( 1 ) with a modification to correct an erroneous reference to subsection by replacing subsection with paragraph (c)(7).”.

13. On page 40599,

a. First column, second paragraph, line 38, the section reference that reads “II.B.3.i” is corrected to read “II.B.3.j.”.

b. Third column, last paragraph, line 9, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 441.703(a)” is corrected to read “§ 441.303(a)”.

14. On page 40611,

a. First column, first partial paragraph, lines 13 through 14, the statutory citation that reads “section 1902(a)(3)(A)” is corrected to read “section 1902(a)(30)(A)”.

b. Second column, heading b. that reads “b. Minimum Performance Requirement and Flexibilities (§ 441.302(k)(2), (3), (4), (5), and (6))” is corrected to read “b. Minimum Performance Requirement and Flexibilities (§ 441.302(k)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7)).”

15. On page 40614, third column, first full paragraph, the last line that reads “section 2402(a)(iii)(B)” is corrected to read “section 2402(a)(3)(B)(iii)”.

16. On page 40615, first column, last full paragraph, line 2, the Federal Register citation that reads “(88 FR 27982)” is corrected to read “(88 FR 27982 through 27984)”.

17. On page 40616, third column, second paragraph, lines 2 through 9, the sentence that reads:

“As discussed in greater detail later in this section, we are modifying the policy we proposed at § 441.302(k)(3) to establish certain exceptions from the minimum performance level, and to establish a 6- year effective date, rather than the 4 years we had proposed.”

“As discussed in greater detail later in this section, we are modifying the policy we proposed, at § 441.302(k)(3), to establish certain exceptions from the minimum performance level, and, at § 441.302(k)(8), to establish a that States must comply beginning 6 years after the effective date of this rule, rather than the 4 years we had proposed at § 441.302(k)(4).”.

18. On page 40619, first column, first full paragraph, line 34 through the end of the paragraph, the sentence that reads:

“We note that we expect that most providers would be subject to a hardship exemption on a temporary basis, and that States would still need to collect and report data as required in § 441.302(k)(2) and § 441.311(e) for providers with hardship exemptions.”

“We note that we expect that most exempted providers would be subject to a hardship exemption on a temporary basis, and that States would still need to collect and report data as required in § 441.302(k)(2) and § 441.311(e) for providers with hardship exemptions.”

19. On page 40624, first column, second full paragraph, line 17, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 441.302(k)(3)(iii)” is corrected to read “§ 441.302(k)(1)(iii)”.

20. On page 40627, third column, fourth full paragraph, line 14, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 441.302(k)(1)(i)(A)” is corrected to read “§ 441.302(k)(1)(ii)(A)”.

21. On page 40633, first column, last paragraph, line 5, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 441.311I” is corrected to read “§ 441.311(e)”.

22. On page 40640, second column, second full paragraph, line 2, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 441.301(c)(3)(ii)” is corrected to read “§ 441.311(b)(3)”.

23. On page 40643, second column, third full paragraph, lines 1 through 5, the sentence that reads “After consideration of public comments received, we are finalizing the HCBS Quality Measure Set reporting requirements at § 441.311(c) with modifications.” is corrected to read “After consideration of public comments received, we are finalizing the HCBS Quality Measure Set reporting requirements at § 441.311(c) with no modifications.”.

24. On page 40646, first column, last paragraph, line 6, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 441.331(d)(1)” is corrected to read “§ 441.311(d)(1)”.

25. On page 40650, second column, last paragraph, line 2, the section reference that reads “II.B.7.e.” is corrected to read “II.B.7.f.”.

26. On page 40653,

a. First column, last paragraph, line 10, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 411.302(k)” is corrected to read “§ 441.302(k)”.

b. First column, last paragraph, line 11, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 411.311(e)(2)” is corrected to read “§ 441.311(e)(2)”.

c. First column, last paragraph, line 14, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 411.302(k)(3)” is corrected to read “§ 441.302(k)(3)”.

d. Second column, first partial paragraph, line 3, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 411.302(k)” is corrected to read “§ 441.302(k)”.

e. Second column, first partial paragraph, line 6, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 411.311(e)(2)” is corrected to read “§ 441.311(e)(2)”.

f. Second column, first partial paragraph, line 10, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 411.302(k)(3)” is corrected to read “§ 441.302(k)(3)”.

g. Second column, first partial paragraph, line 11, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 411.302(k)(3)” is corrected to read “§ 441.302(k)(3)”.

h. Second column, first full paragraph, line 4, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 411.311(e)(2)” is corrected to read “§ 441.311(e)(2)”.

27. On page 40660, third column, heading f. at the bottom of the page, the regulatory citation that reads “441.745(a)(1)(iii)” is corrected to read “441.745(a)(1)(vii)”.

28. On page 40661, first column, first partial paragraph, line 16, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 441.302(a)(6)” is corrected to read “§ 441.311”.

29. On page 40662, third column, first bulleted paragraph, the paragraph that reads:

“We are finalizing the HCBS Quality Measure Set reporting requirements at § 441.311(c) with modifications. At § 441.311(c), we are finalizing a date of 4 years, rather than 3 years, for States to comply with the HCBS Quality Measure Set reporting requirements at § 441.311(c).”

“We are finalizing the HCBS Quality Measure Set reporting requirements at § 441.311(c) with no modifications. At § 441.311(f)(2), we are finalizing a date of 4 years, rather than 3 years, for States to comply with the HCBS Quality Measure Set reporting requirements at § 441.311(c).”.

30. On page 40671,

a. First column, first full paragraph, lines 2 through 11, the sentence that reads:

“As noted previously, we are finalizing § 441.312(c)(1) and (2) with modifications to indicate that we will identify, and update no more frequently than every other year, beginning no later than December 31, 2026, the quality measures to be included in the HCBS Quality Measure Set as defined in paragraph (b) of this section.”

“As noted previously, we are finalizing § 441.312(c)(1) and (2) with modifications to indicate that: we will identify, and update no more frequently than every other year, beginning no later than December 31, 2026, the quality measures to be included in the HCBS Quality Measure Set as defined in paragraph (b) of this section; and we will make technical updates and corrections to the HCBS Quality Measure Set annually as appropriate.”.

b. First column, second full paragraph, lines 1 through 3, the sentence that reads “We will make technical updates and corrections to the HCBS Quality Measure Set annually as appropriate.” is deleted.

c. Third column, second full (and second bulleted) paragraph, the sentence that reads “We are finalizing the definition of attribution rules and Home and Community-Based Services Quality Measure Set at § 441.312(b)(1) with a minor formatting change.” is corrected to read “We are finalizing the definitions of attribution rules and Home and Community-Based Services Quality Measure Set at § 441.312(b)(1) and (2), respectively, with minor modifications.”.

31. On page 40673, first column,

a. Third full paragraph, line 11, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 441.33” is corrected to read “§ 441.313”.

b. Fourth full paragraph, lines 6 and 8, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 441.311” is corrected to “§ 441.313” in both instances.

32. On page 40675,

a. First column, first full paragraph, line 7, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 441.3131(c)” is corrected to read “§ 441.313(c)”.

b. Third column, last full paragraph, lines 1 through 3, the phrase that reads “As discussed earlier in sections II.B.1., II.B.4., II.B.5., II.B.7., and II.J. of this rule” is corrected to read “As discussed earlier in sections II.B.1., II.B.3., II.B.5., II.B.7., and II.B.9. of this rule”.

33. On page 40727, second column, second paragraph, lines 1 through 6, the sentence that reads:

“The State agency is required to publish a hyperlink where the comparative, as well as the payment rate disclosure and payment rate transparency publication, on the State Medicaid agency's website.”

“The State agency is required to publish a hyperlink to where the comparative payment rate analysis, as well as the payment rate disclosure and payment rate transparency publication, is located on the State Medicaid agency's website.”

34. On page 40858, in the middle of the page, TABLE 48: Accounting Table, is corrected to read as follows:

This final rule revises the DFARS to implement section 2881 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 (Pub. L. 118-31). Section 2881 increases the statutory fee limitation at 10 U.S.C. 7540, 8612, and 9540 from six to 10 percent that may be earned by contractors providing certain architect and engineering services under contracts with the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

At DFARS 236.606-70, Statutory fee limitation, DoD increased the statutory fee that contractors may earn under contracts for architect-engineer services for the preparation of designs, plans, drawings, and specifications. The fee is increased to 10 percent of the project's estimated construction cost. Minor editorial revisions are made to the text of section 236.606-70 to comply with drafting conventions.

The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is 41 U.S.C. 1707, Publication of Proposed Regulations. Subsection (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure, or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because the rule addresses internal operating procedures of the Government.

This final rule does not create any new solicitation provisions or contract clauses. It does not impact any existing solicitation provisions or contract clauses or their applicability to contracts valued at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, for commercial products including COTS items, or for commercial services.

Architects and engineers are limited in the amount they can charge the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force for producing and delivering designs, plans, drawings, and specifications. The limitation is a percentage of the architect and engineer's estimate of the construction costs for the project. The limitation is specified at 10 U.S.C. 7540, 8612, and 9540; the limitation has been 6 percent of the estimated construction costs. Section 2881 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 increases the percentage at 10 U.S.C. 7540, 8612, and 9540 to 10 percent of the estimated construction costs. This updated statutory limit only applies to requirements of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; it does not apply to the rest of DoD or to civilian agencies.

Currently, DoD contracting officers evaluate architect and engineering proposals in accordance with FAR 36.602 and DFARS 236.602. Army, Navy, and Air Force contracting officers conduct an additional evaluation of proposals or portions of proposals for producing and delivering designs, plans, drawings, and specifications in accordance with DFARS 236.606-70, to ensure that the proposed price does not exceed the 6 percent statutory limit of the architect and engineer's estimated construction costs. The contracting officer divides the total proposed price for producing and delivering designs, plans, drawings, and specifications by the total estimated construction costs. The resulting percentage may not exceed the statutory limitation.

This rule, which implements section 2881, merely changes each of the occurrences of “six percent” in DFARS 236.606-70 to “10 percent.” The way the contracting workforce implements the limitation will be unchanged, but the limitation will be a higher percentage.

This increase will allow architect and engineering entities, with particular benefit to those with smaller contracts, to cover labor, overhead, indirect, and other direct cost increases since the 6 percent rate was put in place over 80 years ago on contracts for producing and delivering designs, plans, drawings, and specifications. The increase will also benefit architect and engineering entities with contracts for producing and delivering designs, plans, drawings, and specifications for large horizontal and complex vertical construction projects. While costs have increased for architects and engineers, construction costs have increased more dramatically, which results in a higher cost limit. For example, if a particular construction project in the past cost $900,000, the statutory fee limit was $54,000. If the same construction project today costs $1.8 million, the prior statutory fee limit would be $108,000 for the same effort, and with the increased statutory limit, the fee would be limited to $180,000.

The implementation of this rule will increase the amount the Government will pay for contracts that include producing and delivering designs, plans, drawings, and specifications. However, this rule may also encourage more architect and engineering entities to submit proposals for DoD contracts.

Data was obtained from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) on Army, Navy, and Air Force construction contracts awarded for the last three fiscal years. FPDS data shows that from FY 2021 through FY 2023, there was an average of 1,857 construction contracts awarded with an average annual value of approximately $25 billion for all of the contracts. DoD subject matter experts established that DoD considers projects valued at less than $5 million as small projects and projects over $5 million as large projects. Data obtained from FPDS shows that from FY 2021 through FY 2023, there was an average of 1,420 small construction contracts awarded with an average annual value of approximately $1.4 billion. Information obtained from DoD subject matter experts establishes that the historical average price for architect and engineering entities to produce and deliver designs, plans, drawings, and specifications is 3.25 percent of the estimated construction costs. DoD expends on average approximately $811 million ($25 billion x 3.25 percent) annually for producing and delivering designs, plans, drawings, and specifications.

Once section 2881 is implemented, the statutory limit for architects and engineers to produce and deliver designs, plans, drawings, and specifications will be raised to 10 percent of the estimated construction costs. The historical average architect and engineer's price for producing and delivering designs, plans, drawings, and specifications is 45 percent less than the statutory limit, at 3.25 percent of the estimated construction costs. This is because, architects and engineers must justify their proposed costs to accomplish the work. They cannot simply state in their proposals that the fee is 6 percent; they must negotiate the fee with the contracting officer. Given this historical average while the statutory limit was 6 percent, it is unlikely that the price for this work would increase to the new statutory limit of 10 percent of the estimated construction costs. According to DoD subject matter experts, the statutory increase will have the greatest benefit to projects involving large horizontal projects and complex vertical projects with multi-disciplinary teams.

DoD expects that architect and engineering contracts associated with large construction projects ( i.e., estimated construction costs of more than $5 million) will experience only a small increase within the range of about 3.25 percent to about 3.75 percent of the estimated construction costs, based on information provided by DoD subject matter experts. From FY 2022 to FY 2023, the military departments' spending on construction projects more than doubled, mainly due to inflation in construction costs, and most of the dollars spent were for large construction projects. As a result, even at 3.25 percent of the estimated construction costs, the price for architect and engineering contracts associated with large construction projects is substantially more today than it was three or more years ago. While costs have also increased for architects and engineers, construction costs have increased more dramatically, which results in a substantially higher fee limit. For example, if a particular construction project in the past cost $6 million, the statutory fee limit was $360,000. If the same construction project today costs $10 million, the prior statutory fee limit would be $600,000 for the same architect and engineering effort. As this example demonstrates, architect and engineering entities have already seen an increase in the fee limit due to the dramatic increase in the estimated construction costs.

Based on information provided by DoD subject matter experts, DoD expects architect and engineering contracts associated with smaller construction projects ( i.e., estimated construction costs of less than $5 million) to increase from 3.25 percent to 5.42 percent of the estimated construction costs for producing and delivering designs, plans, drawings, and specifications. DoD calculated that 3.25 percent is about 54.16 percent of the statutory fee limit of 6 percent (3.25/6 = 0.54166, or 54.16 percent). If DoD continues to pay about 54.16 percent of the statutory fee limit ( i.e., 54.16 percent of the new 10 percent limit), the resulting fee would be 5.42 percent. DoD expects this increase will be driven by the small-dollar contracts that would hit the 6 percent limit without this rule, but with this rule would be between 6 percent and 10 percent. The construction projects associated with these architect and engineering contracts are much smaller, but may require more architect and engineering effort due to the complexity even though the construction project is relatively small. For example, a simple renovation project may require architects and engineers to produce drawings of the existing space, demolition plans and drawings, plans and drawings for structural modifications, etc., in addition to producing the drawings for the renovation. Even with inflation in the cost of construction, 3.25 percent of a small construction project may not be enough for the architects and engineers to cover anticipated costs. Therefore, DoD expects to see a larger increase in the amount paid to architects and engineers for smaller contracts.

Based on an increase in smaller architect and engineering contracts to 5.42 percent of the estimated construction costs and an increase in larger architect and engineering contracts to 3.6 percent of the estimated construction costs, DoD estimates an average annual economic impact of approximately $110 million. This amount was calculated using FPDS data on construction contracts awarded in FY 2021 through FY 2023. The construction contracts awarded during this 3-year period were valued at an annual average of $24,359,067,619, of which large construction contracts were $22,965,495,843 per year and smaller construction contracts were $1,393,571,776 per year.

DoD calculated the value of the architect and engineering contracts associated with large construction projects using the historical average price of 3.25 percent of estimated construction costs for producing and delivering designs, plans, drawings, and specifications by multiplying the annual average value for large construction contracts by 3.25 percent. This results in architect and engineering contracts valued at $746,378,615 ($22,965,495,843 * 0.0325 = $746,378,615). DoD also calculated the value of the architect and engineering contracts associated with large construction projects using higher prices in the range of 3.25 percent to 3.75 percent of estimated construction costs, which DoD expects to pay as a result of this rule. This results in architect and engineering contracts valued in the range of $746,378,615 to $861,206,094 ($22,965,495,843 * 0.0325 = $746,378,615 and $22,965,495,843 * 0.0375 = $861,206,094). The difference between the value of the architect and engineering contracts calculated using the higher percentage and those calculated using the lower percentage is $80,379,235 ($861,206,094 − $746,378,615 = $114,827,479). DoD expects to pay up to $114,827,479 more for architect and engineering contracts associated with large construction projects as a result of this rule.

DoD calculated the value of the architect and engineering contracts associated with smaller construction projects using the historical average price of 3.25 percent of estimated construction costs for producing and delivering designs, plans, drawings, and specifications by multiplying the annual average value for smaller construction contracts by 3.25 percent. This results in architect and engineering contracts valued at $45,291,083 ($1,393,571,776 * 0.0325 = $45,291,083). DoD also calculated the value of architect and engineering contracts associated with smaller construction projects using the higher price of 5.42 percent of estimated construction costs, which DoD expects to pay as a result of this rule. This results in architect and engineering contracts valued at $75,531,590 ($1,393,571,776 * 0.0542 = $75,531,590). The difference between the value of the architect and engineering contracts calculated using the higher percentage and those calculated using the lower percentage is $30,240,507 ($75,531,590 − $45,291,083 = $30,240,507). DoD expects to pay that much more for architect and engineering contracts associated with smaller construction projects as a result of this rule.

Therefore, as a result of this rule, DoD expects to pay up to approximately $145,021,999 ($114,827,479 + $30,194,520 = $145,021,999) more per year than it has paid in recent years for architect and engineering contracts associated with both large and smaller construction projects.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended.

As required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808) before an interim or final rule takes effect, DoD will submit a copy of the interim or final rule with the form, Submission of Federal Rules under the Congressional Review Act, to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule under the Congressional Review Act cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment.

This final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Therefore, the Defense Acquisition Regulations System amends 48 CFR part 236 as follows:

The final rule addressing rear underride protection, which was published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2022, 1 upgraded NHTSA's safety standards for rear underride protection in crashes of passenger vehicles into trailers and semitrailers by adopting requirements similar to Transport Canada's standard for rear impact guards. With this final rule, the standards now require rear impact guards to provide sufficient strength and energy absorption to protect occupants of compact and subcompact passenger cars impacting the rear of trailers at 56 kilometers per hour (km/h) (35 miles per hour (mph)). The final rule provides upgraded protection for crashes in which a passenger motor vehicle hits the rear of the trailer or semitrailer such that 50 to 100 percent of the width of the passenger motor vehicle overlaps the rear of the trailer or semitrailer.

NHTSA initiated this rulemaking in response to petitions for rulemaking from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and from Ms. Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition. The final rule also responded to and fulfilled the rulemaking mandate of Section 23011(b)(1)(A) of the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58 (commonly referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL), which directs the Secretary (by delegation, NHTSA) to upgrade the Federal safety standards for rear impact guards. NHTSA also issued the final rule in accordance with DOT's January 2022 National Roadway Safety Strategy, which describes the five key objectives of the Department's Safe System Approach: safer people, safer roads, safer vehicles, safer speeds, and post-crash care. One of the key Departmental actions to enable safer vehicles was to issue a final rule to upgrade existing requirements for rear impact guards on newly manufactured trailers and semitrailers.

In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 2 NHTSA's regulations specify, at 49 CFR 553.35, that any interested person may petition NHTSA for reconsideration of any final rule by filing a petition within 45 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register . As required by 49 CFR 553.35(a), the petition must contain a brief statement of the complaint and an explanation why compliance with the rule is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest.

NHTSA received two petitions in response to the final rule. The first petition was submitted by Jerry and Marianne Karth, Aaron Kiefer, Eric Hein, Lois Durso-Hawkins, Andy Young, and Garrett Mattos and dated July 15, 2022. 3 That petition did not meet the requirements in 49 CFR part 553 for a petition for reconsideration and NHTSA will instead treat and respond to it as a petition for rulemaking in a separate notice. 4

The second petition, dated August 25, 2022, was submitted by Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC), Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH), and Parents Against Tired Truckers (PATT), referred to collectively as “Advocates et al.” throughout this document. 5 The petitioners disagreed with the data and analysis that the agency used for the final rule and asserted that NHTSA should require reinforced rear guards designed for the 30 percent overlap crash condition. The petitioners stated that the lesser requirements established by the final rule are “inadequate and dangerous” and will increase market demand for weaker guards, leading to additional fatalities. The petitioners asserted that the final rule is not in the public interest and requested a stay of the effective date.

The petitioners claimed that NHTSA did not fully consider the available data on underride crashes. They cited statistics regarding the number of fatal large truck crashes in recent years, the cost of crashes involving trucks and buses, and the occupational hazards of truck driving. They asserted that NHTSA's data analysis was incorrect because it relied on a single University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) study and did not account for underreporting of underride crashes. They claimed that the UMTRI study was faulty due to its use of police reports and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), which they assert do not properly identify underride crashes. The petitioners also stated that NHTSA ignored recommendations from IIHS, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding underride data collection, including the 2019 GAO recommendation  6 to include underride in the Minimum Modal Uniform Crash Criteria.

The petitioners raised substantially similar points in comments they submitted during the rulemaking process. NHTSA carefully reviewed all information submitted by the petitioners and commenters throughout the rulemaking process to inform the final rule. The agency gave full consideration to the comments submitted in response to the NPRM, including those regarding underride crash data and underreporting. No new data was provided in this petition for reconsideration; the statistics cited by Advocates et al. are not specific to truck crashes with light passenger vehicles and do not provide information on underride. The concerns raised about the data on rear underride crashes used to inform rulemaking were addressed in the preamble to the final rule.

As explained in the preamble (at 87 FR 42354), NHTSA's analysis did not rely on underride coding in FARS or in police reports, and instead used TIFA  7 data with supplemental information reported in the 2013 UMTRI Study. The TIFA database has greater accuracy than FARS for all medium and heavy trucks involved in fatal traffic crashes, providing more detailed information on the involved large trucks, motor carriers, and sequence of events. The 2013 UMTRI Study analyzed crash information to determine if the crashes might have been underride crashes even when they were not categorized as such in the police reports and in FARS. The study gathered additional information on the rear geometry of single unit trucks and trailers, the configuration of rear impact guards on trucks and trailers, and the incidence and extent of underride and fatalities in rear impacts with trucks and trailers. Because of the detailed analysis and the supplemental information collected for each crash, the 2013 UMTRI Study forms the most comprehensive and valid data set available to inform the agency regarding crashes involving trucks and trailers and the incidence of underride. The crash severity and occurrence of passenger compartment intrusion (PCI) were determined from the passenger vehicle information. Further, to avoid underestimating underride fatalities, the agency's analysis of the UMTRI study considered all crashes with PCI to be underride even though large striking vehicles may sustain PCI in crashes without underride due to high impact speed and other factors.

NHTSA acknowledges that there is undercounting of underride crashes in FARS and in police reports, which is partly why NHTSA did not rely on these sources in the final rule. NHTSA is taking steps to improve data collection to support future rulemaking. NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have developed and provided educational materials to State and local police departments on identifying and recording underride crashes. An underride data element was also included in the recently published “Minimum Modal Uniform Crash Criteria” 6th Edition, 8 as recommended in the 2019 GAO report. In addition to the education materials NHTSA provided to State and local police departments, NHTSA will continue to provide training and guidance resources to the law enforcement community to improve accuracy and consistency in the reporting of truck underride crashes.

The petitioners claimed that NHTSA failed to fulfill what they describe as a BIL mandate to match IIHS TOUGHGUARD performance  9 and that NHTSA did not address the guard deficiencies that IIHS previously identified for 30 percent overlap protection. The petitioners stated that some trailer manufacturers currently provide redesigned guards that meet the IIHS TOUGHGUARD requirements as standard, and that Stoughton's guard does not add weight or cost. They asserted that NHTSA set an unreasonably low standard and there will be an “increase in deaths and injuries that will result from an increase in market demand for weaker guards” due to the requirements in the final rule.

The section in the final rule titled “NHTSA's Statutory Authority and Response to BIL”  10 described provisions of the Safety Act, relevant sections of the BIL, and fulfillment of BIL mandates in relation to the final rule. The BIL made clear that NHTSA was to adopt a standard for the 30 percent overlap condition if the standard met the Safety Act's requirements and considerations for a safety standard. The Safety Act requires, at 49 U.S.C. 30111, motor vehicle safety standards to be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. Further, when establishing new FMVSS requirements, NHTSA must consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the motor vehicle type for which it is prescribed. While a particular trailer model may include a more robust guard as standard, the agency must consider the effect of a mandate on all vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 224. As explained in the final rule (at 87 FR 42359-42360), NHTSA has decided that an FMVSS that requires all covered vehicles (trailers and semitrailers) to provide rear impact protection in full-frontal, 50 percent overlap, and 30 percent overlap crashes at 56 km/h (35 mph) impact speed would not be reasonable or practicable and would not meet the requirements of Sections 30111(a) and (b) of the Safety Act for issuance of FMVSS.

The petitioners also did not provide any evidence to support the claim that the requirements in the final rule may lead to market demand for weaker guards and a higher rate of fatalities and injuries in comparison to current statistics. Nor does the agency believe that manufacturers will cease selling guards that have received awards from IIHS. In the absence of sufficient information to quantify potential changes in consumer behavior, accounting for such claims in the regulatory analysis is not appropriate. As the requirements of the final rule are more stringent than the preceding requirements, the agency does not agree that it would be in the public interest to stay the final rule.

For the reasons discussed above, the agency is denying the August 25, 2022 petition from Advocates et al. for reconsideration of the July 15, 2022 final rule (87 FR 42339).

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.We have determined that the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle meets the Act's definition of a threatened species; therefore, we are listing it as such. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can be completed only by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ).

What this document does. This rule lists the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle ( Macrochelys suwanniensis ) as a threatened species and finalizes the rule issued under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act (the “4(d) rule”) that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of this species.

The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on 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. We have determined that the primary threats acting on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle include illegal harvest and collection (Factor B), nest predation (Factor C), and hook ingestion and entanglement due to bycatch associated with freshwater fishing (Factor E).

Please refer to the April 7, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 18014) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.

A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report, version 1.0, for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (Service 2020, entire). 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 impacts 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 of listing actions under the Act, we sought peer review of the SSA report version 1.0 (Service 2020, entire). As discussed in the proposed rule, we sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and received responses from one reviewer. The peer review can be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov and at our Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). In preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated the results of this review, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule. A summary of the peer review comments and our responses can be found in in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations below.

In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered comments we received on our April 7, 2021, proposed rule to list the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle as a threatened species with a 4(d) rule. We updated the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle SSA report (to version 1.2 (Service 2022, entire) based on comments and additional information provided during the proposed rule's comment period. Those updates are reflected in this final rule, as follows:

1. We update the description of the species' representation and redundancy and clarify these conservation principles to provide a better understanding of the species' current and future viability.

2. We include new information provided during the comment period regarding the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) associated with forest management practices. We added a discussion on ways in which the implementation of such BMPs provides conservation benefits to the species.

3. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from prohibitions associated with Federal and State captive-breeding programs to support conservation efforts for wild populations. We determined this provision is redundant with the exception under 50 CFR 17.31(b), which is already included in the 4(d) rule.

4. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from the prohibitions regarding incidental take resulting from herbicide/pesticide use from this final rule. We do not have enough information about the types or amounts of pesticides that may be applied in areas where Suwannee alligator snapping turtle occurs to be able assess the future impacts to the species. The additional materials provided during the public comment period indicate impacts to other turtle species from pesticide use occurs (Bishop et al. 1991, entire; Sparling et al. 2006, entire; Kittle et al. 2018, entire). Therefore, including this exception to incidental take may not provide for the conservation of the species. Further, we note that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not consulted on most pesticide registrations to date, so excepting take solely based on user compliance with label directions and State and local regulations EPA has not consulted on most pesticide registrations to date and is not appropriate in this situation. Retaining this exception in the absence of consultation on a specific pesticide registration may create confusion regarding the consideration of these impacts and whether Federal regulatory processes apply to these activities. It was not our intent to supersede the consultation on the pesticide registration nor other Federal activities.

5. For the 4(d) rule, we revise the text of the exception from incidental take prohibition resulting from forestry management practices. We remove the terms “silviculture and silvicultural practices” and replace them with “forest management practices” to clarify the exception to incidental take prohibitions, as this is more appropriate for the intent and purpose of the rule.

6. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from incidental take prohibition resulting from construction, operation, and maintenance activities that occur near and in a stream. We determined this exception is too vague to meaningfully provide conservation benefits to the species. In addition, this exception could have caused confusion regarding whether Federal or State regulatory processes apply to these activities. Many activities occurring near or in a stream require permits or project review by Federal or State agencies, and including this exception could have been interpreted as removing these requirements, which was not our intention.

7. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from incidental take prohibition resulting from maintenance dredging activities that occur in the previously disturbed portion of a maintained channel. We determined this exception is too vague to meaningfully provide conservation benefits to the species. In addition, dredging activities to promote river traffic can cause temporary turbidity, leading to decreased ability to see and ambush prey species; the removal of underwater snags, which could reduce prey availability by eliminating areas where prey is found ( e.g., congregation areas, nursery areas, feeding areas); and the filling of scour areas used to ambush prey. In addition, this exception could have caused confusion regarding whether Federal or State regulatory processes apply to these activities. All in-water work, including dredging in previously dredged area, requires appropriate State and Federal permits, so including this exception could have been interpreted as removing this requirement, which was not our intention.

8. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from prohibitions for Tribal employees and State-licensed wildlife rehabilitation facilities. A provision under 50 CFR 17.31(b)(1) now extends to federally recognized Tribes the exceptions to prohibitions for threatened wildlife to aid, salvage, or dispose of threatened wildlife and is already included in this 4(d) rule. We also are not including the exception from prohibitions for State-licensed wildlife rehabilitation facilities because it is redundant with the provision at 50 CFR 17.21(c)(3), which allows take of endangered wildlife without a permit if such action is necessary to aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen without additional authorization, which is also already included in the 4(d) rule.

9. We update information to reflect that the alligator snapping turtle ( Macrochelys temminckii ) was transferred from Appendix III of CITES to Appendix II (CITES 2023, pp. 45-46).

10. We make minor, nonsubstantive editorial corrections and revisions for clarity and consistency throughout this document.

The information we received during the comment period on our April 7, 2021, proposed rule did not change our determination that the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle meets the Act's definition of a threatened species. The information provided through the comment period also did not cause us to revise our determination that designation of critical habitat for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is not prudent.

In the proposed rule published on April 7, 2021 (86 FR 18014), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by June 7, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed listing determination and proposed 4(d) rule. A newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published in the Gainesville Sun on April 21, 2021. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided during the comment period either has been incorporated directly into the final rule or is addressed below.

As discussed in Peer Review above, we received a response from one peer reviewer on the draft SSA report. As discussed above, because we conducted this peer review prior to the publication of our proposed rule, we had already incorporated all applicable peer review comments into version 1.1 of the SSA report, which was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule and ultimately into the latest version of the SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2022, entire). The peer reviewer generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional information regarding seed dispersal by the common snapping turtle ( Chelydra sepentina ). We added the information provided by the peer reviewer into the SSA report, version 1.1 (Service 2021, entire) as appropriate.

We received 34 public comments in response to our April 7, 2021, proposed rule. We reviewed all comments we received during the public comment period for substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule. Seventeen comments provided substantive comments or new information concerning the proposed listing of the species' status, proposed 4(d) rule, and prudency determination for critical habitat for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Below, we provide a summary of public comments we received; however, comments that we incorporated as changes into the final rule, comments outside the scope of the proposed rule, and those without supporting information did not warrant an explicit response and, thus, are not presented here. Identical or similar comments have been consolidated and a single response provided.

(1) Comment: The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), Wildlife Resources Division commented that occasional observations by biologists and anglers indicate that ensnarement and/or hook ingestion by Suwannee alligator snapping turtle may occur as a result of legal fishing methods in Georgia, and research is needed to further quantify population impacts of incidental take on this species. The GDNR also recommended the rule place greater emphasis on promoting practices and regulations to reduce impacts to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle from abandoned fishing gear.

Our Response: We plan to work with both GDNR and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to better understand impacts from legal and abandoned fishing gear. As discussed in our April 7, 2021, proposed rule, turtle bycatch from legal recreational and commercial fishing with hoop nets and trot lines (and varieties including jug lines, bush hooks, and limb lines) is a concern for the conservation of the species due to its effects on species abundance, particularly in light of the species' life-history traits. It is important to ensure that fishing activities take into consideration the need to prevent accidental turtle deaths from the use of such fishing gear, and we will work with our State partners to identify measures and revisions to existing State fishing regulations to reduce bycatch of Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Given we did not receive information during the comment period for bycatch reduction techniques, we did not include an exception for incidental take of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle resulting from bycatch from otherwise lawful recreational and commercial fishing in our final 4(d) rule. Therefore, take of the species resulting from bycatch activities is prohibited in the 4(d) rule.

(2) Comment: One commenter stated their view that the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle should be listed as an endangered species rather than a threatened species.

Our Response: An endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Based on the best available information as described in the SSA report (Service 2022, entire), we do not find that the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The current condition of the species provides for sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation such that it is not currently in danger of extinction (see Determination of Suwannee Alligator Snapping Turtle Status in the proposed listing rule (86 FR 18014, April 7, 2021, at pp. 18026-18028) and below in this final rule). When evaluating the species' status based on the threats and the species' response to the threats in the future, the species meets the Act's definition of a threatened species because it is at risk of becoming an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. The commenters did not provide any new information regarding threats to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle or its current status that was not already considered in the SSA report (Service 2021, entire) or our April 7, 2021, proposed rule. With no new information to consider, our conclusion regarding the status of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle remains the same.

(3) Comment: A commenter suggested we list the common snapping turtle ( C. serpentina ) under the Act based on similarity of appearance (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(e)) to help curb the threat of incidental captures of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles by trappers that are targeting common snapping turtles.

Our Response: Under section 4(e) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(e)), a species may be listed as endangered or threatened due to similarity of appearance of a listed species if the species so closely resemble one another that it is difficult to tell them apart and if this similarity is a threat to the species that is warranted for listing. The likelihood of incidental capture from legal common snapping turtle harvest is anticipated to be low due to the disparity between the preferred habitat types used by the common snapping turtle and the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Common snapping turtle habitat typically includes impoundments such as lakes, ponds, and oxbows. The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle prefers more riverine systems. While there may be some overlap between these habitat types and their ranges, the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle can be distinguished from the common snapping turtle based on certain physical characteristics. The common snapping turtle shares some similar features to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, but there are distinctive characteristics that can aid in differentiation of the two species. The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's carapace has three keeled ridges and a curved, hooked, beak-like projection at the mouth, while the common snapping turtle lacks these features. Because of the physical characteristics that are unique to each species that facilitate identification, we have determined that listing the common snapping turtle due to similarity of appearance is not necessary or appropriate.

(4) Comment: One commenter noted the Service's analysis of redundancy and representation for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle in the SSA report was contrary to the agency's SSA framework and commented that we did not describe representation in a meaningful way.

Our Response: Our analysis of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's redundancy and representation adheres to the definitions presented in the SSA framework. Representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment, and redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events. At the time of our April 7, 2021, proposed rule, the best available scientific information regarding the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle indicated there was no genetic or environmental condition variation across the species' range. We assessed representation, which measures a species' adaptive potential in the face of natural or anthropogenic changes, as inherently low for this species, because the best available information at that time showed it lacked significant genetic variation within its single population. Based on the public comments and new literature related to assessing adaptive capacity (Thurman et al. 2020, entire), in this final rule and our revised SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2022, entire), we updated our discussion of representation by describing the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's adaptive capacity in terms of its genetic, biological, and ecological traits necessary to understand the species' plasticity to changing conditions over time. Adaptive capacity reflects the amount of tolerance for change based on genotypic and phenotypic attributes. Change can include impacts from climate change ( e.g., higher air and water temperatures, saltwater intrusion, etc.) and humans ( e.g., water withdrawal, fishing gear, habitat alterations, etc.). We assessed the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle to have low to moderate adaptive capacity in the life-history and demography traits and moderate to high adaptive capacity in the distribution, movement, evolutionary potential, ecological role, and abiotic niche traits. Further information on how we describe the species in terms of its adaptive capacity with its ability to acclimate to environmental stressors can be found in our SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2022, pp. 37-39).

For redundancy, in our proposed and this final rule, we assessed current redundancy as limited, as the species is considered a single population with no physical barriers to movement. While there is only a single population, it is widely distributed across the historical range. We assessed the chance of a catastrophic event affecting the entire species as very low. However, given the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is currently assessed as a single population with an estimated abundance of 2,000 turtles across the species' historical range, we determined redundancy to be naturally limited, given the species' distribution is limited to the Suwannee River basin.

(5) Comment: One commenter inquired why the Service did not apply the blanket 4(d) rule to this species.

Our Response: Prior to August 27, 2019, the prohibitions for endangered species under section 9 of the Act were generally extended to threatened species (referred to as the “blanket 4(d) rule”) unless we adopted a species-specific 4(d) rule for a particular species. On August 27, 2019, we published a final rule (84 FR 44753) removing the blanket 4(d) rule for threatened species. That 2019 final rule was in effect when we published our April 7, 2021, proposed rule for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle and is still in effect. On May 6, 2024, a rule became effective that re-instated the blanket 4(d) rule (89 FR 23919). The updated regulations extend the majority of the protections (all of the prohibitions that apply to endangered species under section 9 with certain exceptions to those prohibitions) to threatened species, unless we issue an alternative rule under section 4(d) of the Act for a particular species ( i.e., a species-specific 4(d) rule). For species with a species-specific 4(d) rule, that rule contains all of the protective regulations for that species. We exercised our authority under section 4(d) of the Act and developed a proposed species-specific 4(d) rule to address the specific threats and conservation needs of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. The 4(d) rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. For the species-specific 4(d) rule, we determined that it is not necessary to apply all of the Act's section 9 prohibitions to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle; the provisions of the species-specific 4(d) rule are described below under Provisions of the 4(d) Rule and set forth below under Regulation Promulgation.

(6) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the Service's description of the exceptions for construction, operation, and maintenance in the 4(d) rule is too broad and vague to determine when the exception applies.

Our Response: We agree that it is difficult to understand and identify specific situations when the exception to incidental take resulting for construction, operation, and maintenance activities would apply. Accordingly, as stated above under Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule, we are not including an exception to the incidental take prohibitions in the 4(d) rule for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle because it is too vague to meaningfully provide conservation benefits to the species. In addition, many activities occurring near or in a stream require permits or project review by Federal or State agencies, and, if retained, this exception would have caused confusion with respect to the requirements that must be met when undertaking these activities.

(7) Comment: One commenter expressed concern about an exception for silviculture and forestry BMPs, given the implementation of less effective silviculture and forestry BMPs for riparian areas and potential negative impacts to the species.

Our Response: State-approved BMPs for silviculture and forestry maintain riparian buffers, resulting in reduced sedimentation into the stream from upland sources, reduced water temperature, increased dissolved oxygen, and more material for in-water woody debris. These attributes promote aquatic diversity and are required for healthy habitats.

Implementing BMPs that avoid or minimize the effects of habitat alterations in areas that support Suwannee alligator snapping turtles will provide additional measures for conserving the species by reducing indirect effects to the species. We recognize that silvicultural operations are widely implemented in accordance with State-approved forestry BMPs (as reviewed by Cristan et al. 2018, entire), which provide more stringent riparian protections, and the adherence to these BMPs broadly protects water quality, particularly related to sedimentation (as reviewed by Cristan et al. 2016, entire; Warrington et al. 2017, entire; and Schilling et al. 2021, entire). For example, Florida's State silviculture BMPs for designated outstanding Florida waters, such as the Suwannee and Santa Fe Rivers, require a 300-foot buffer on each side of the river. Forestry and silvicultural activities that implement State-approved BMPs will have a de minimis impact on the species, and we have determined that this exception to the incidental take prohibitions in the 4(d) rule will be beneficial to the species. If forestry and silvicultural activities do not implement or improperly implement BMPs, then this exception will not apply.

(8) Comment: One commenter suggested that current regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the threat of incidental bycatch to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, and a 4(d) rule that excepts take incidental to recreational fishing activities would only be appropriate if the methods of fishing that incidentally capture turtles were prohibited or significantly modified to prevent incidental capture.

Our Response: In the proposed rule, we requested information regarding ideas for the design of a turtle escape or exclusion device and modified trot line techniques that would effectively eliminate or significantly reduce bycatch of alligator snapping turtles from recreational fishing; however, we did not receive any comments to inform fishing gear modifications to reduce bycatch of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. Recreational fishing activities are regulated by State natural resource and fish and game agencies, and these agencies issue permits for these activities in accordance with their regulations. We will coordinate with State agencies to better understand the impacts of permitted recreational fishing on Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. In addition, we will work with the State to reduce the risk of bycatch, which may include modifying fishing mechanisms based on the best available science related to reducing fishing impacts through research and development on innovative fishing technologies and methodologies. Additionally, we will continue coordinating with State agencies on the development of public awareness programs regarding identification and conservation of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Further, since we did not receive information during the comment period for bycatch reduction techniques, we do not include in the 4(d) rule an exception to incidental take of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle resulting from bycatch from otherwise lawful recreational and commercial fishing using techniques to reduce bycatch. Therefore, take of the species resulting from bycatch is prohibited by the 4(d) rule.

(9) Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the 4(d) rule's exception to the take prohibition for pesticide and herbicide use. The commenter stated that the exception is arbitrary and not supported by the best available scientific and commercial data. The commenter stated that exposure to pesticides and herbicides is harmful to turtle species and provided several citations to support the comment (such as, Bishop et al. 1991, entire; Sparling et al. 2006, entire; Kittle et al. 2018, entire))

Our Response: After review of the comments to the proposed rule and revisiting the best available scientific and commercial information, we are not including the pesticide and herbicide use exception from the incidental take prohibitions in the final 4(d) rule. In the proposed rule and this final rule, we describe the primary threats to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle as illegal harvest and collection, nest predation, and hook ingestion and entanglement due to bycatch associated with freshwater fishing. And although nest predation is a primary threat to the species, the most common nest predators identified are raccoons ( Procyon lotor ). Nonnative, invasive species, such as feral pigs ( Sus scrofa ) and red imported fire ants ( Solenopsis invicta ), occur across the species' range, but to date, nest predation by these nonnative species has not been documented. In the preamble of our proposed 4(d) rule, we proposed an exception to incidental take prohibitions resulting from invasive species removal activities using pesticides and herbicides as these types of activities could be considered beneficial to the native ecosystem and are likely to improve habitat conditions for the species. However, we do not have enough information about the types or amounts of pesticides that may be applied in areas where Suwannee alligator snapping turtle occurs to be able assess the future impacts to the species.

The additional materials provided during the public comment period do not indicate Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is impacted greatly from pesticides used to reduce impacts from nonnative, invasive species; however, the information provided does indicate impacts to other turtle species from pesticide use (Bishop et al. 1991, entire; Sparling et al. 2006, entire; Kittle et al. 2018, entire). As documented in other turtle species from the literature provided by the commenter, we assessed that there is the potential of indirect effects from pesticides on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, and therefore, including this exception to incidental take may not provide for the conservation of the species.

Further, we note that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not consulted on most pesticide registrations to date, so excepting take solely based on users complying with labels is not appropriate in this situation. Thus, we are not including the exception from the prohibitions regarding incidental take resulting from herbicide/pesticide use from this final rule.

(10) Comment: One commenter suggested modifying the 4(d) rule to except captive breeding for turtles held in captivity prior to the effective date of the listing to allow for appropriate captive-breeding programs to contribute to the conservation of the species.

Our Response: We recognize the contribution of permitted captive breeding to the conservation of species. However, there are currently no captive-breeding efforts occurring for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle; therefore, there are no existing captive-breeding programs that we could except prior to the effective date of this final rule (see DATES , above). There are programs underway for M. temminckii that include captive rearing, head-start programs, and reintroductions that are successful. Similar programs may be implemented in the future to conserve the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. In our proposed 4(d) rule, we included a provision allowing incidental take associated with Federal and State captive-breeding programs to support conservation efforts for wild populations. However, we determined this provision is duplicative of an exception under 50 CFR 17.31(b), which we also included in the proposed 4(d) rule and retain in this final 4(d) rule. Therefore, this final 4(d) rule does not include a separate captive-breeding exception from the incidental take prohibitions.

(11) Comment: A commenter claimed that the Service did not provide sufficient support for the not-prudent finding for critical habitat designation regarding the threat of illegal collection of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. The commenter also indicates the location data and maps are already available to the public in published reports.

Our Response: We recognize that designation of critical habitat can provide benefits to listed species; however, for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, increased threats caused by the designation outweigh the benefits (for further discussion, see 86 FR 18014, April 7, 2021, at p. 18032). We do not dispute the claim that publicly available reports identify specific location data for the species, including locations of where the species occurs from trapping efforts. We acknowledge that general location information is provided within the proposed rule and this final rule, and some specific location information can be found through other sources. However, because the critical habitat designation process includes identifying the physical or biological features for the species and specific areas occupied by the species, the designation of critical habitat would describe and disclose areas of higher quality habitat that supports more turtles, which may allow collectors to better focus their efforts in these areas, thereby exacerbating the threat of collection or other harm from humans.

Please refer to the April 7, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 18014) and the SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2022, pp. 4-14) for a full summary of species' information. Both are available on our ECOS website for the species at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10891 and at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0007.

A thorough review of the taxonomy, distribution, life history, and ecology of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle ( Macrochelys suwanniensis ) is presented in the SSA report version 1.2 (Service 2022, pp. 13-22); however, much of this information is based on the Macrochelys genus as a whole and describes the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle using the best available information.

Turtles in the genus Macrochelys are the largest species of freshwater turtle in North America, are highly aquatic, and are somewhat secretive. The genus includes two distinct species, M. temminckii and M. suwanniensis. Macrochelys turtles are characterized as having a large head, long tail, and an upper jaw with a strongly hooked beak. They have three raised keels with posterior elevations on the scutes of the carapace (upper shell), which is dark brown and often has algal growth that adds to their camouflage. Their eyes are positioned on the side of the head and are surrounded by small, fleshy, pointed projections that are unique to the genus.

Suwannee alligator snapping turtles are primarily freshwater turtles endemic to the Suwannee River basin and found more abundantly in the middle reaches of the Suwannee River where freshwater springs contribute to an increase in productivity of the aquatic system (Enge et al. 2014, p. 36). These turtles are typically bottom-dwelling, but surface periodically to breathe (Thomas 2014, p. 60). While the species is typically found in fresh water, it can tolerate some salinity and brackish waters, as barnacles have been found on the carapace of some turtles. The species is found in a variety of habitats across its range, but all life stages rely on submerged material ( i.e., deadhead logs and vegetation) as important structure for resting, foraging, and cover from predators (Enge et al. 2014, p. 39).

The Suwannee River basin encompasses parts of southern Georgia and northern Florida. Main water bodies that currently or historically supported the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle include the Suwannee River, Santa Fe River, New River, Alapaha River, Little River, and Withlacoochee River. Individuals occupy main river channels and tributaries where habitat is present.

Throughout this document, we provide descriptions of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle where the information is available specific to the species. We describe the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle as Macrochelys suwanniensis or Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. We reference Macrochelys when describing the genus and Macrochelys temminckii (abbreviated as M. temminckii ) when referring to the second species of the genus, alligator snapping turtle. Since the taxonomic distinction of the two Macrochelys spp. is relatively recent, we may refer to the genus, or alligator snapping turtles in general, to describe life-history traits.

The general life stages of Macrochelys spp. can be described as egg, hatchling (first year), juvenile (second year until age of sexual maturity), and adult (age of sexual maturity through death). Each life stage has specific requirements in order to contribute to the productivity of the next life stage. They excavate nests in sandy soils or other dry substrate near freshwater sources that are within 8 to 656 feet (ft) (2.5 to 200 meters (m)) from the shore. The incubation period for Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is between 105 to 110 days (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 145).

Males achieve sexual maturity in 11-21 years and females in 13-21 years (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 144; Reed et al. 2002, p. 4). The age of sexual maturity can be influenced by the size of the turtle, as size increases are greater when food resources and other environmental conditions are more favorable. Adult Suwannee alligator snapping turtles require streams and rivers with submerged logs and undercut banks, clean water, and ample prey.

Female alligator snapping turtles may produce a single clutch once a year or every other year at most even if the conditions are good (Reed et al. 2002, p. 4). Clutch size may vary across the species' range to between 9 and 61 eggs, with a mean clutch size of 27 eggs (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 145). Most nesting occurs from May to July (Reed et al. 2002, p. 4).

Suwannee alligator snapping turtles are long-lived species; provided suitable conditions, adults can reach carapace lengths of up to 29 inches and 249 pounds for males, while females can reach lengths of 22 inches and 62 pounds. The oldest documented Macrochelys turtle in captivity survived to at least 80 years of age, but in the wild, the species may live longer (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 147). The generation time for the species is around 31 years (range = 28.6-34.0 years, 95 percent confidence interval, Folt et al. 2016, p. 27).

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. On April 5, 2024, 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 what criteria we apply when designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the same day, the Service published a final rule revising our protections for endangered species and threatened species at 50 CFR part 17 (89 FR 23919). These final rules are now in effect and are incorporated into the current regulations. Our analysis for this final decision applied our current regulations. Given that we proposed listing for this species under our prior regulations (revised in 2019), we have also undertaken an analysis of whether our decision would be different if we had continued to apply the 2019 regulations; we concluded that the decision would be the same. The analyses under both the regulations currently in effect as of May 6, 2024, and the 2019 regulations are available on https://www.regulations.gov.

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 have an effect on 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.

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—in light of 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 of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of 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 which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; “M- Opinion,” available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf ). The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter, the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best available data and taking into account considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can make reasonably reliable predictions. “Reliable” does not mean “certain”; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of the Act.

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 listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does 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 Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's 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 conditions, pathogens). 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 the 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 of 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 FWS-R4-ES-2021-0007 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.

The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is found in the Suwannee River basin in Georgia and Florida. The species is mostly aquatic and uses a variety of habitat types including deeper water of large rivers and their major tributaries; however, they are also found in a wide variety of habitats, including small streams, springs, bayous, canals, swamps, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. This large turtle species is an opportunistic feeder and consumes a variety of foods. Fish comprise a significant portion of its diet; however, crayfish, mollusks, smaller turtles, insects, snakes, birds, and vegetation (including acorns) have also been reported (Elsey 2006, pp. 448-489; Elbers and Moll 2011, entire). Additional information regarding the species' needs is provided in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 4-14) and the proposed listing rule (86 FR 18014; April 7, 2021).

We provide information regarding past, present, and future influences, including both positive and negative influences, on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's current and future viability, including illegal harvest (Factor B), bycatch (Factor E), habitat loss and degradation (Factor A), nest predation (Factor C), climate change (Factor E), and conservation measures. The existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) have not been adequate to arrest the decline of the species. Additional threats such as historical commercial and recreational harvest targeting the species, disease, parasitic insects, boating, and contaminants are described in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 15-22); these additional threats may negatively affect individuals of the species or have historically affected the species, particularly when compounded with other ongoing stressors or threats, but they do not impact the species' overall current or future viability.

Commercial and recreational turtle harvesting practices in the last century resulted in a decline of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle across its range (Enge et al. 2014, p. 4). Commercial harvest of both species of alligator snapping turtles reached its peak in the late 1960s and 1970s, when the meat was used for commercial turtle soup products and sold in large quantities for public consumption. In addition, many restaurants served turtle soup and purchased large quantities of alligator snapping turtles from trappers in the southeastern States (Reed et al. 2002, p. 5). In the 1970s, the demand for turtle meat was so high that as much as three to four tons of alligator snapping turtles ( M. temminckii ) were harvested from the Flint River in Georgia per day (Pritchard 1989, p. 76). The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (now the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)) reported significant numbers of turtles being taken from the Apalachicola and Ochlocknee Rivers to presumably be sent to restaurants in New Orleans and other destinations (Pritchard 1989, pp. 74-75). While such large-scale removal of Macrochelys turtles occurred across the range of the genus, the population demographics of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles in Florida indicate there was likely less commercial harvesting activities in the Suwannee River drainage than elsewhere (Enge et al. 2017, p. 6; Enge et al. 2014, entire; Johnston et al. 2015, entire).

Florida prohibited the commercial harvest of all Macrochelys spp. in 1972, and recreational or personal harvest in 2009; Georgia prohibited all harvest in 1992 (Service 2022, pp. 27-29). Despite the prohibitions on commercial and recreational harvest for the species, the historical removal of large turtles continues to affect the species due to their low fecundity, low juvenile survival, long lifespan, and delayed maturity. Commercial harvest is not currently a threat to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, but the effect of historical, large-scale removal of large turtles is ongoing.

Although both Florida and Georgia have prohibited recreational harvest, there is an international and domestic demand for turtles for consumption and for herpetofauna enthusiasts who collect turtle species for pets (Stanford et al. 2020, entire). The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is no exception; farmed, hatchling alligator snapping turtles may be sold for up to 400 U.S. dollars per turtle (Lejeune et al. 2020, p. 8; MorphMarket 2024, unpaginated). Illegal harvest, or poaching, of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles may occur anywhere within the species' range for both the pet trade and turtle meat trade. The best available information regarding potential pressure from poaching comes from documented reports by law enforcement agencies and court cases involving the congeneric (species within the same genus) alligator snapping turtle. In 2017, three men were convicted of violating the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371-3378; 18 U.S.C. 42) because they collected 60 large alligator snapping turtles ( M. temminckii ) in a single year in Texas and transported them across State lines (see United States v. Travis Leger et al., No. 1:17-CR-00040 (E.D. Tex.)). We expect that illegal harvest is affecting Suwannee alligator snapping turtles, given it has been documented on many occasions for the heterospecific alligator snapping turtle. Illegal harvest is an ongoing threat to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle because removing adult female turtles from the population lowers the viability of the species by reducing reproductive potential; in addition, the species is long-lived, slow to mature, and juvenile survival is very low, making it more difficult for the historically over-harvested population to recover.

Aside from the local and domestic use of turtles, the global demand for pet turtles and turtle meat continues to increase. Many species of turtles are collected from the wild as well as bred in captivity and are sold domestically and exported internationally. Macrochelys spp. are regularly exported out of the United States, typically as hatchlings or juveniles, to initiate brood stock for overseas turtle farms and for turtle collectors. According to the Service's Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS), which provides reports about the legal international wildlife trade, most shipments of live alligator snapping turtles exported from 2005 to 2018 consisted of small turtles destined mostly for Hong Kong and China (Service 2018, entire). Prior to 2006, up to 23,780 M. temminckii per year were exported from the United States (70 FR 74700; December 16, 2005). Since the time of the proposed listing, the species has been uplisted to CITES Appendix II that may provide additional protections to the species. See the section below for additional information, Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms.

Because of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's delayed maturity, long generation times, and relatively low reproductive output, the species cannot sustain collection from the wild, especially of adult females, over any length of time (Reed et al. 2002, pp. 8-12). Adult turtles do not reach sexual maturity until 11 to 21 years of age. A mature female typically produces only one clutch per year consisting of 8-52 eggs (Ernst and Barbour 1989, p. 133). These turtles are characterized by low survivorship in early life stages, but surviving individuals may live many decades once they reach maturity. The life-history traits of the species (low fecundity, late age of maturity, and low survival of nests and juveniles) contribute to the population's slow response rebound after historical over-exploitation. Therefore, population growth rates are extremely sensitive to the harvest of adult females. Adult female survivorship of less than 98 percent per year is considered unsustainable, and a further reduction of this adult survivorship will generally result in significant local population declines (Reed et al. 2002, p. 9), although dynamics likely vary across the species' range. These data underscore how influential adult female mortality is on the ability of the species to maintain viability.

Although regulatory harvest restrictions have decreased the number of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles harvested, populations have not necessarily increased in response. This lag in population response is likely due to the demography of the species—specifically delayed maturity, long generation times, and relatively low reproductive output. The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle population remains low despite commercial and recreational harvest prohibitions (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2017, p. 6). Through expert elicitation, the magnitude of the threat of illegal harvest or poaching across the basin ranges from 20-55 percent of the species' range may be affected (Service 2022, p. 28).

Suwannee alligator snapping turtles can be killed or harmed incidentally during fishing and other recreational activities. Some of these threats include fishhook ingestion; drowning when hooked on trotlines (a fishing line strung across a stream with multiple hooks set at intervals), limb lines, bush hooks (single hooks hung from branches), or jug lines (line with a hook affixed to a floating jug); and injuries or drowning when entangled in various types of fishing line. The magnitude of the threat due to incidental hooking ( i.e., recreational trot and limb lines, fishing tackle, etc.) as provided though expert elicitation describes the impact to the species as affecting between 30-75 percent of the species' range (Service 2022, p. 28).

Hoop nets are also used to capture catfish and baitfish and are made up of a series of hoops with netting and funnels where fish enter but are unable to escape through the narrow entry point. The nets are left submerged and may entrap small Suwannee alligator snapping turtles that enter the traps and are unable to escape. Actively used or discarded fishing line and hooks pose harm to Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. They can ingest baited fishhooks and attached fishing line and depending on where ingested hooks and line lodge in the digestive tract, they can cause harm or death (Enge et al. 2014, pp. 40-41). For example, hooks and line can cause gastrointestinal tract blockages, and the hooks can puncture the digestive organs, leading to mortality (Enge et al. 2014, pp. 40-41). Fishhooks have been found in the gastrointestinal tracts of radiographed Suwannee alligator snapping turtles (Enge et al. 2014, entire; Thomas 2014, pp. 42-43).

Trotlines also negatively affect Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. Trotlines are a series of submerged lines with hooks off a longer line. Trotline fishing involves leaving the lines unattended for extended periods, before returning to check them. Limblines and bush hooks are similar to trot lines in that they are typically set and left unattended; however, they only use a single hook. The turtles can become entangled in the lines and drown, as well as ingest trotline hooks and lines, also causing drowning or internal injuries. Bycatch from trotlines that resulted in mortality of Macrochelys turtles has been well documented. Dead turtles have been found on lines that had seemingly been abandoned (Moore et al. 2013, p. 145). The lines and hooks may also become dislodged from their place of attachment when left unattended, becoming aquatic debris that remains in the waterway for extended periods of time and may continue to be an entanglement hazard for many species, including Suwannee alligator snapping turtles.

The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's aquatic and nesting habitats have been altered by anthropogenic disturbances. Changes in the riparian or nearshore areas affect the amount of suitable soils for nesting sites because the species constructs nests on land near the water. Riparian cover is important as it moderates in-stream water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels. In addition to affecting the distribution and abundance of alligator snapping turtle prey species, these microhabitat conditions affect the snapping turtles directly. Moderate temperatures and sufficient dissolved oxygen levels allow the turtles to remain stationary on the stream bottom for longer periods, increasing the ambush foraging opportunities. Changes in the riparian structure may affect the microclimate and conditions of the associated water body, directly affecting the foraging success of the turtles.

Activities and processes that can alter habitat include dredging, deadhead logging (removal of submerged or partially submerged snags, woody debris, and other large vegetation for wood salvage), removal of riparian cover, channelization, stream bank erosion, siltation, and land use adjacent to rivers ( e.g., clearing land for agriculture). These activities negatively influence habitat suitability for Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. Erosion can change the stream bank structure, affecting the substrate that may be suitable for nesting or accessing nesting sites. Siltation affects water quality and may reduce the health and availability of prey species. Channelization destroys the natural benthic habitat and also affects the water depth and normal flow. Submerged obstacles may be removed during the channelization, which affects the microhabitat dynamics within the waterway and removes important structures for alligator snapping turtles to use for resting, foraging, and cover from predators. While channelization within the species' range does not regularly occur, it is not prohibited. Deadhead logs and fallen riparian woody debris, where present, provide refugia during low-water periods and resting areas for all life stages and support important feeding areas for hatchlings and juveniles (Enge et al. 2014, p. 40; Ewert et al. 2006, p. 62).

Suwannee alligator snapping turtle habitat is also influenced by water availability and quantity, as well as water quality, across the species' range. Ground water withdrawals in the Florida portion of the species' range are managed by the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD); withdrawals increased by 64 percent between 1975 and 2000, mostly for irrigation. Most withdrawals in the basin occur in agricultural areas along the Suwannee River during the spring (March through May) (Thom et al. 2015, p. 2). Water withdrawals may reduce flow in some streams, effectively isolating some turtles from the rest of the population or making immature turtles more vulnerable to predators. Additionally, reduced water levels may impact prey abundance and distribution through restricting habitat connectivity, reducing dissolved oxygen levels, and increasing water temperatures.

Water quality may also be a factor for Suwannee alligator snapping turtles as contaminants enter the aquatic systems through runoff. The Lower Suwannee River's middle and lower basins are directly impacted by nutrients, including nitrates. Agricultural practices are the main source of nitrates, which specifically come from fertilizers and in some cases from manure and other waste products. They introduce nitrates to the river and groundwater ( i.e., springs) through surface runoff and groundwater seepage. Groundwater seepage transports nitrates to the aquifer, which then reemerge through springs and other groundwater discharge, especially during low-flow periods (Pittman et al. 1997, entire; Katz et al. 1999, entire; Thom et al. 2015, p. 2).

The direct effects of water quality and water quantity on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle have not been quantified; however, as the human population that relies on water systems in the species' range continues to increase, the indirect effects across the entire range, coupled with other stressors, is likely to further reduce the species' viability. Underscoring the potential severity of this threat, Florida's human population is anticipated to grow from nearly 21.5 million in 2019 to more than 24.0 million by 2030 (Rayer and Wang 2020, p. 9). The public water supply demand will increase with increased human population growth. All counties within the species' range in Florida (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Suwannee, and Union Counties) are part of the SRWMD supply area and are projected to increase the public water supply demand by an average of 11.29 percent in millions of gallons of water per day from 2010 to 2035 (SRWMD 2015, p. 42). In addition, the human population in these counties will experience an average of 17.25 percent population growth from the year 2010 to 2035 (SRWMD 2015, p. 43). As the human population increases, other threats to the species and its habitat are likely to increase. For example, recreational use of the Suwannee River will more than likely continue to rise, which will increase human encounters with Suwannee alligator snapping turtles through incidental bycatch. Also, more development may result in an increase in contaminated runoff and declines in water quality.

Nest predation rates for Macrochelys spp. are high. Raccoons ( Procyon lotor ) are common nest predators, but nine-banded armadillos ( Dasypus novemcinctus ), Virginia opossums ( Didelphis virginiana ), bobcats ( Lynx rufus ), and river otters ( Lontra canadensis ) may also depredate nests (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 149; Ewert et al. 2006, p. 67; Holcomb and Carr 2013, p. 482). Additional nonnative species found within the species' range that may depredate nests include feral pigs ( Sus scrofa ) and invasive red imported fire ants ( Solenopsis invicta ) (Pritchard 1989, p. 69). Although not documented in Suwannee alligator snapping turtle nests, fire ants are prevalent across the species' range, and predation by fire ants was the suspected culprit in the failure of alligator snapping turtle ( M. temminckii ) nests in Louisiana (Holcomb 2010, p. 51). Beyond nest failure, some hatchlings endured wounds inflicted by fire ants that led to the loss of a limb or tail, which reduced their mobility and their chance of survival (Holcomb 2010, p. 72). The recovery of the species from historical overharvest depends on successful reproduction and survival of young. The currently low population size does not allow for absorbing the impact of elevated nest predation. The degree of added threat from the newer, introduced nest predators is unknown, but we can conclude that the overall threat from nest predation is greater than it was in the past because of introduced predators such as feral hogs, and fire ants. The magnitude of nest predation by native and exotic species affected between 5-10 percent of the spatial extent of the species' range, as provided through expert elicitation (Service 2022, p. 28). Coupled with other threats, nest predation will continue to negatively affect the species' overall viability.

Climate change may also affect the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle to varying degrees, but the extent of impact is influenced by certain geographical factors, including proximity to the coast and latitudinal thermogradients. Climate change may affect the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle in several ways. First, the effects of decreased precipitation due to climate change will cause an increase in water withdrawal for human use ( i.e., potable water and agriculture irrigation). Additionally, reduced precipitation may directly and indirectly impact habitat, food, and water availability throughout the Suwannee River basin. Available water will be reduced as evaporation increases with continued warming temperatures. Furthermore, increased temperatures may have physiological impacts on sex ratios because these turtles have temperature-dependent sex determination, and higher temperatures may skew the sex ratio.

In the southeastern United States, temperatures are predicted to warm by 4 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (2.2 to 4.4 degrees Celsius (°C)) by 2100 (Carter et al. 2014, p. 399). Temperature determines the sex of the Macrochelys developing embryos; certain nest temperatures result in primarily male hatchlings with females produced at temperatures of the two extremes of the intermediate male-producing temperatures. Females are produced when the nest temperatures are either cooler or warmer than the temperature threshold for male development. In order to develop mixed ratios of both sexes, fluctuating temperatures near the intermediate and extremes are ideal. In addition to temperature effects on sex ratio, temperature has been associated with nest viability, with highest viability in nests with intermediate sex ratios (produced at the male-producing intermediate temperature range with fluctuations of warmer or cooler temperatures for female-producing temperatures during the incubation period) and lowest in nests with female-biased sex ratios (Ewert and Jackson 1994, pp. 28-29). Thus, warming temperatures might lead to Suwannee alligator snapping turtle nests with strongly female-biased sex ratios. These skewed sex ratios may result in declining viability as mating behaviors are altered and other issues with unbalanced populations arise.

Collectively, these impacts from reduced precipitation and increased temperature would reduce the quality or availability of suitable habitat for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (Thom et al. 2015, p. 126). Climate change impacts on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle will likely act in concert with, and exacerbate, the impacts of other threats and stressors.

Other stressors that may affect Suwannee alligator snapping turtles include disease, nest parasites, contaminants from urban and agricultural runoff, and historical recreational harvest, but none of these stressors are having species-level impacts on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. These stressors may act on individuals or have highly localized impacts. While each is relatively uncommon, these stressors may exacerbate the effects of other ongoing threats.

Additional information on these stressors acting on the species is available in the species' SSA report under “Factors Influencing Viability” (Service 2022, pp. 23-29). This information includes historical and current threats that have caused and are causing a decline in the species' viability. The primary threats currently acting on the species include illegal harvest, nest predation, and hook ingestion and entanglement due to bycatch associated with freshwater fishing. These primary threats are not only affecting the species now but are expected to continue impacting the species and were included in the species' future condition projections in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 41-56).

Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) requires that an applicant for a Federal license or permit provide a certification that any discharges from the facility will not degrade water quality or violate water-quality standards, including State-established water quality standard requirements. Section 404 of the CWA establishes programs to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States.

Nationwide, regional general, or individual permits are issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill wetlands; to install, replace, or remove culverts; to install, repair, replace, or remove bridges; or to realign streams or water features. These permit types are summarized below.

• Nationwide permits are for “minor” impacts to streams and wetlands, and do not require an intense review process. The impacts allowed under nationwide permits usually include projects affecting stream reaches less than 150 ft (45.72 m) in length, and wetland fill projects up to 0.50 acres (0.2 hectares). Mitigation is usually provided for the same type of wetland or stream impacted and is usually at a 2:1 ratio to offset losses.

• Regional general permits are for various specific types of impacts that are common to a particular region; these permits will vary based on location in a certain region or State.

• Individual permits are for the larger, higher impact, and more complex projects. These require a complex permit process with multi-agency input and involvement. Impacts in these types of permits are reviewed individually, and the compensatory mitigation chosen may vary depending on the project and types of impacts.

The CWA regulations, set forth in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the Environmental Protection Agency and in title 33 of the CFR for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ensure proper mitigation measures are applied to minimize the impact of activities occurring in streams and wetlands where the species occurs. These regulations contribute to the conservation of the species by minimizing or mitigating the effects of certain activities on Suwannee alligator snapping turtles and their habitat.

Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is included in the CITES Appendices under Macrochelys temminckii, based on the CITES standard nomenclature reference for turtles (Fritz & Havaš 2007, p. 172), which recognizes M. temminckii as the only taxon in the genus Macrochelys. This species was originally included in CITES Appendix III in 2006, when the genus was recognized as a single species, described as Macroclemys and synonymous with Macrochelys (70 FR 74700; December 16, 2005). At the 19th Conference of the Parties (November 2022), Macrochelys temminckii was transferred from Appendix III of CITES to Appendix II (CITES 2023, pp. 45-46). Because CITES only recognizes a single species of Macrochelys ( M. temminckii ), both taxa, the alligator snapping turtle and the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, are protected under CITES Appendix II regulations.

CITES requires permits for exports of Appendix II species, which are only issued when: (1) the Scientific Authority has advised that the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species; (2) the Management Authority is satisfied that the specimen(s) were legally acquired; and (3) the Management Authority is satisfied that any living specimens will be prepared and shipped so as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health, or cruel treatment. Export numbers are also monitored by U.S. CITES Authorities and reported to CITES annually. Whenever a Scientific Authority determines that the export of specimens of any such species should be limited in order to maintain that species throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the ecosystems in which it occurs and well above the level at which that species might become eligible for inclusion in Appendix I, the Scientific Authority shall advise the appropriate Management Authority of suitable measures to be taken to limit the grant of export permits for specimens of that species.These requirements help regulate and document legal, international trade; they further ensure that specimens entering international trade are acquired legally, and that the trade of the species is biologically sustainable for, and will not be detrimental to the survival of, the species. Thus, Appendix II regulations complement and lend additional support to State wildlife agencies in their efforts to regulate and manage these species, improve data gathering to increase knowledge of trade in the species, and strengthen State and Federal wildlife enforcement activities to prevent poaching and illegal trade.

When this taxon was included in CITES Appendix III, reporting of annual exports was also required. While CITES reporting indicates the number of turtles exported with other relevant data, in the past, the information required for the export reports has not always accurately identified the source stock of the exported turtle(s). Most alligator snapping turtles that were exported between 2005 and 2018 were identified as “wild” individuals; however, many were likely from farmed parental stock (Service 2018, entire). The discrepancy in reporting the actual source of the internationally exported turtles has not allowed us to easily evaluate the impact of export on Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. Inclusion in Appendix II, unlike Appendix III, requires an evaluation that the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species, which will help better assess the impact of export.

Approximately 5 percent of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's range includes areas within two National Wildlife Refuges (NWR), Okefenokee in Georgia and Lower Suwannee in Florida. These NWRs are managed by the Service to conserve native wildlife species and their habitats and are protected from future development. Both NWRs have comprehensive conservation plans (CCP) that ensure each NWR is managed to fulfill the purpose(s) for which it was established.

Okefenokee NWR is at the northernmost proximity of the species' range and is a freshwater wetland. There are only a few anecdotal reports of the species occurring within Okefenokee NWR. There have been no systematic surveys conducted within the swamp, so the extent of use by the species of that area has not yet been documented. However, the paucity of documented and anecdotal records from the surrounding areas would indicate that the species is not common or widespread at this location.

The Okefenokee NWR CCP includes a strategy within the wildlife management goal to “develop and implement surveys to determine distribution and population status of amphibians and reptiles, particularly those species that are threatened, endangered, or species of special concern.” The CCP also includes an objective to “identify factors influencing declines in the refuge's fishery by examining water chemistry, groundwater withdrawals, water quality, pH levels, invertebrate populations, and the physical environment” (Service 2006, pp. 84-86). This knowledge would clearly benefit management of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.

The Lower Suwannee NWR is at the mouth of the Suwannee River where it feeds into the Gulf of Mexico. Twenty miles of the Suwannee River is within the refuge and is suitable habitat for Suwannee alligator snapping turtles, albeit less so as salinity increases the closer the river gets to the Gulf of Mexico. The species is considered common within the refuge, and nesting has been confirmed; however, the species is not commonly seen (due to their ability to burrow into the river or creek banks, or to sit on the bottom of the river and stay submerged until surfacing for air is needed), and cryptic coloration when submerged makes detection of the species very difficult (Woodward 2021, pers. comm.). The Lower Suwannee NWR CCP includes management actions that may benefit the species and provides goals for wildlife, habitat, and landscape management. The CCP's objectives and strategies provide that the refuge monitor and manage wildlife populations, manage the habitats for endangered and threatened species and species of special concern in the State of Florida, and promote interagency and private landowner cooperation (Service 2001, pp. 11-22). The Lower Suwannee River NWR provides logistical, operational, in-kind, and financial support to FWC's Suwannee alligator snapping turtle team to conduct surveys on the refuge.

Moody Air Force Base (Base) is near Valdosta, Georgia, and has many freshwater ponds and a large lake, Mission Lake, that drains into the Grand Bay system. Suwannee alligator snapping turtles do not commonly occur on the Base, but they are occasionally found. The Base's integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) describes Macrochelys as occurring on the Base; however, there are no management activities described directly for the species in the INRMP. The Department of Defense ensures INRMPs are consistent with the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997, as amended through 2010 (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq. ), which requires the preparation, implementation, update, and review of an INRMP for each military installation in the United States and its territories with significant natural resources.

The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is protected by State law in both Florida and Georgia as a threatened species. Florida Administrative Code rule 68A-27.003 makes it illegal to take, possess, or sell (except as specifically permitted or authorized) species listed as federally designated endangered or threatened species and State-designated threatened species; this includes the species' parts, their nests, and their eggs. Since the original 2011 biological status review for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (FWC 2011, entire), two species of alligator snapping turtle were differentiated based upon genetic and skeletal differences (Thomas 2014, entire), necessitating new biological status reviews of both species. During FWC's 2017 biological assessment of Macrochelys, the biological review group determined that M. suwanniensis was distinct and warranted designation as State-threatened based upon International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List criteria (Enge et al. 2017. p. 3).

Florida developed a species action plan (SAP) that includes all Macrochelys spp. due to their similarity in appearance, vulnerability to deliberate human take, incidental take with fishing gear, pollution, riverine habitat alteration, and nest predation (FWC 2018, p. iii). The objectives of the SAP include habitat conservation and management, population management, monitoring and research, rule and permitting intent, law enforcement, incentives and influencing, education and outreach, and coordination with other entities (FWC 2018, pp. 10-27). Implementation of the Macrochelys spp. SAP is ongoing (FWC 2018, entire). FWC has established a team of biologists who continue to study the species to better understand the species and population trends.

Both Macrochelys suwanniensis and M. temminckii are found in Georgia, but their ranges do not overlap. Georgia listed M. temminckii as threatened in 1992, which at the time included both species, and continues to cover both species as threatened. State law protects threatened animal species by prohibiting their harassment, capture, killing, sale, and purchase, as well as the destruction of their habitat on public lands (Georgia Administrative Code, rule 391-4-10-.06). In the State's wildlife action plan, the Department of Natural Resources indicates they intend to conduct genetic, taxonomic, and reproductive studies of high-priority species (GDNR 2015, p. D-5). Current State regulations are intended to minimize the impact of poaching and also contribute to the conservation of the species through public outreach.

Structural features within the water are important components of the habitat for Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. Submerged and partially submerged vegetation provide feeding and sheltering areas for all age classes. The structural diversity and channel stabilization created by instream woody debris provides essential habitat for spawning and rearing aquatic species (Bilby 1984, p. 609; Bisson et al. 1987, p. 143). Snag or woody habitat was reported as the major stable substrate in southeastern Coastal Plain sandy-bottom streams and a site of high invertebrate diversity and productivity (Wallace and Benke 1984, p. 1651). Wood enhances the ability of a river or stream ecosystem to use the nutrient and energy inputs and has a major influence on the hydrodynamic behavior of the river (Wallace and Benke 1984, p. 1643). One component of this woody habitat is deadhead logs, which are sunken timbers from historical logging operations. Deadhead logging is the removal of submerged cut timber from a river or creek bed and banks. However, current State regulations minimize the impact of deadhead logging on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Florida allows deadhead logging only with proper permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; this State agency assesses the proposed activity's impacts on wildlife before issuing a permit. Further, the State of Florida prohibits deadhead logging in some of the waterways in the species' range. Georgia is not currently processing permits; therefore, deadhead logging is not currently being permitted in any of Georgia's waterways.

A buffer such as a strip of trees, plants, or grass along a stream or wetland naturally filters out dirt and pollution from rainwater runoff before it enters rivers, streams, wetlands, and marshes. This vegetation not only serves as a filter for the aquatic system, but the riparian cover influences microhabitat conditions such as in-stream water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels. These habitat conditions not only influence the distribution and abundance of alligator snapping turtle prey species but also directly affect Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. Moderate temperatures and sufficient dissolved oxygen levels allow the turtles to remain stationary on the stream bottom for longer periods, increasing their ambush foraging opportunities. Loss of riparian vegetation and canopy cover result in increased solar radiation, elevation of stream temperatures, loss of allochthonous (organic material originating from outside the channel) food material, and removal of submerged root systems that provide habitat for alligator snapping turtle prey species (Allan 2004, pp. 266-267).

The Georgia Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1975 restricts disturbance and trimming of vegetation within a 25-ft (7.62-m) buffer adjacent to creeks, streams, rivers, saltwater marshes, and most lakes and ponds, and the Georgia Planning Act of 1989 requires some local governments to adopt a 100-ft (30.48-m) buffer. Georgia also has a non-point water pollution source management program under which the State established and updates a nonpoint source management plan; this plan sets long-term goals and short-term activities for the State, partners, and stakeholders to address non-point source pollution. Although not focused on buffers per se, the Florida Surface Water Improvement and Management Act of 1987 addresses Statewide non-point source pollution impacts to waterbodies on a landscape scale and partners with Federal, State, and local governments, and the private sector to restore damaged ecosystems and prevent pollution from storm water runoff. These State laws provide riparian protections and promote water quality, which protect potential nesting areas for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.

Water conservation measures restricting lawn and landscaping irrigation can benefit the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle by limiting water withdrawal, which directly benefits the turtle through maintaining available habitat and supporting habitat for prey species, and by reducing runoff of fertilizers and other turf management chemicals that could disrupt or alter water chemistry in the streams. The SRWMD manages the water and other related resources within the range of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle including the Suwannee, Withlacoochee, Alapaha, Santa Fe, and Ichetucknee Rivers within Florida. The agency monitors the water quantity and quality by regular testing and reporting. It also implements water-use restrictions to conserve freshwater resources of springs and rivers within the SRWMD. Unnecessary water use is discouraged, and landscape irrigation restrictions are implemented as needed, such as limiting watering to twice per week based on district water conservation measures that apply to residential landscaping, public or commercial recreation areas, and businesses that are not regulated by a district-issued water use permit (SRWMD 2021, unpaginated). Landscape irrigation accounts for the largest percentage of household water use in the State of Florida. Mandatory lawn and landscape watering measures are in effect throughout the SRWMD. These restrictions contribute to maintaining healthy groundwater level and flows.

The current condition for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle considers the current abundance, current threats, and current conservation actions in the context of what is known about the species' historical range. In order to determine species-specific population and habitat factors along with threats and conservation actions influencing the species, expert elicitation was used in the absence of available related information. To describe Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's current resiliency, redundancy, and representation, we assessed the species as a single population, because there is evidence that the turtles may move between the mouths of the Suwannee and Santa Fe Rivers in Florida. The entire species is estimated to have an abundance of 2,000 turtles across its entire range in Georgia and Florida (Service 2022, p. 34).

The primary threats currently acting on the species include illegal harvest, nest predation, and hook ingestion and entanglement due to bycatch associated with freshwater fishing. Other stressors acting on the species include historical commercial and recreational harvest, habitat alteration and degradation, and the effects of climate change. The species is State-listed as threatened in both Florida and Georgia. When evaluating range expansion or constriction, recent surveys have confirmed minimal change in the known, limited historical range.

The resiliency of the single Suwannee alligator snapping turtle population is described according to its abundance, threats, and range expansion or contraction. Current resilience was assessed as current abundance, along with information about current threats, conservation actions, and distribution serving as auxiliary information about the causes and effects of current versus historical abundances. There is little information with which to make rigorous comparisons between current and historical abundances; however, population depletions historically occurred for consumption and cumulated through the 1970s, when turtles and turtle meat were exported regionally for commercial use. Information about the magnitude of the changes in abundance over time comes from anecdotal observations by trappers (Pritchard 1989, pp. 74, 76, 80, 83). The historical large-scale removal of large, reproductive turtles from the population for commercial harvest continues to affect the species and its ability to rebound. The species is described as a single population with an estimated abundance of 2,000 turtles across most of its historical range. As a result of the impacts from historical and ongoing threats, as described above, the population size has been reduced from historical levels. This decline has impacted the current ability of the species to withstand environmental stochasticity. Additional information regarding current condition descriptions is included in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 30-40).

The home range for Suwannee alligator snapping turtles has been reported between 780 ft (243 m) and 6,604 ft (2,013 m) (Thomas 2014, pp. 41-42). Turtles are not confined to any part of their range as long as there are no physical barriers; while this species is aquatic with the exception of nesting, these turtles are capable of moving across land if necessary, as conditions become unsuitable or resources are diminished. When describing the species' representation, for the purposes of the SSA in evaluating the species' current and future viability, the species consists of a single representative unit. Representation is used to describe the species' ability to withstand environmental changes over time, or the species' adaptive capacity. We describe the species in terms of its adaptive capacity with its ability to acclimate to environmental stressors (Service 2022, pp. 37-39). We considered life-history attributes and assessed the species' propensity to respond to chronic environmental influences (Thurman et al. 2020, entire). The species has a type 3 survivorship curve, meaning only a few individuals reach maturity with adults usually having a long life span. This type of survivorship limits the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle to an overall low to moderate adaptive capacity in the life-history and demographic attributes. The high rating of its fecundity and parity is overshadowed by the low rate of hatchling survivorship to maturity. The low level of parental investment allows females to nest and resume feeding and sheltering activities with minimal impacts to their health, thus allowing for a high adaptive capacity for this attribute. The species has a moderate to high adaptive capacity in the distribution, movement, evolutionary potential, ecological role, and abiotic niche attributes. The life history and demographic attributes used in determining the species' adaptive capacity have the greatest influence on the species' ability to respond to changes in its physical and biological environments over time. Therefore, representation will continue to be low to moderate.

The best available science regarding the species indicates there is no genetic variation within the species' single population across the species' range that would allow for delineating additional representative units.

The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's redundancy is likewise limited to the single population, with an estimated abundance of 2,000 turtles, across its range. Redundancy is related to a species' response to a catastrophic event. While there is only a single population, it is widely distributed across the historical range; therefore, the chance of a catastrophic event affecting the entire species is very low.

In summary, the overall current condition of the species' viability is affected by the residual effects of historical overharvest, historical and ongoing impacts from recreational fishing, including incidental limb line/bush hook take and bycatch, and from hook ingestion, illegal harvest, habitat alteration, nest predation, and the species' life history ( i.e., low annual recruitment and delayed sexual maturity). Because of these threats, and particularly the legacy effects of historical harvest, the overall current condition is a single population with an estimated abundance of 2,000 turtles across most of the species' historical range. The species' resiliency is likely lower than it was historically as a result of the loss of reproductive females and the species' life history (long-lived, late age to sexual maturity, low intrinsic growth rate). However, the species was not well-studied historically, so there is little information (anecdotal observations) with which to make comparisons between historical and current abundance estimates. Redundancy and representation are limited, respectively, since the species is considered a single population with little genetic variability and there are no physical barriers to movement.

The future condition of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is described in detail in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 41-56). When evaluating the species' future viability, we consider the current condition of the species and the threats acting on the species to develop a model to determine future trends of species' estimated abundance. We applied six plausible scenarios that factored in the estimated abundance and threats acting on the species to project the future resiliency of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (see table, below). Three scenarios consider conservation actions to be applied, while the remaining three scenarios project conditions with no conservation actions. Conservation actions that could decrease the spatial extent of habitat threats include but are not limited to: increased enforcement of state laws or law enforcement presence to reduce poaching or bycatch on illegally set trot or limb lines, prohibited recreational fishing or certain gear ( e.g., trotlines, hoopnets) in the Suwanee River basin, and management actions that reduce the densities of nest predators. In addition to habitat modification, long term female population augmentation can be implemented by head-starting and captive breeding programs by Federal, State, and non-governmental organizations. The actual amount that any of these actions would influence the prevalence of threats will depend on factors like the time, money, personnel, and conservation partners available, but we selected a 25 percent reduction in the spatial extent of threats to explore how much a change of that amount affected future population dynamics (Service 2022, pp. 37-38).

To assess future conditions and the viability of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, we constructed a female-only, stage-structured matrix population model to project the population dynamics over 50 years to encompass a two-generation period for the species and the reliability in predicting the response to the threats in that time frame. Species experts identified five primary threats that were likely to reduce stage-specific survival probabilities: commercial fishing bycatch (includes entanglement, drowning, or otherwise dying from interaction with fishing gear; influencing hatchling, juvenile, and adult survival), recreational fishing bycatch (has the same impacts as commercial fishing bycatch; influenced juvenile and adult survival), hook ingestion (surviving a bycatch event but enduring the lingering effects of an ingested hook; influenced juvenile and adult survival), illegal collection ( i.e., poaching; influenced hatchling, juvenile, and adult survival), and subsidized nest predators (influenced nest survival) with two having the greatest impact (illegal harvest and nest predation). The subsidized nest predator threat reflects additional nest depredation beyond what would be expected from common nest mesopredators ( e.g., raccoons and opossums), with fire ants ( Solenopsis spp.) being the primary nest predator.

We used the best available information from the literature to provide values for the population matrix and elicited data from species experts to quantify stage-specific initial abundance, the spatial extent of threats, and threat-specific percent reductions to survival. To account for potential uncertainty in the effects of each threat, the six future scenarios were divided along a spectrum: threat-induced reductions to survival were decreased by 25 percent, were unaltered, or were increased by 25 percent. To simulate conservation actions, the spatial extent of each threat was either left the same or reduced by 25 percent (see table, below). The 25 percent was selected using expert input and included a logical extent in which we would expect to see evident impacts to the population. We used a fully stochastic projection model that accounts for uncertainty in demographic parameters to predict future conditions of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle units under the six different scenarios. We then used the model output to predict the probability of extinction and quasi-extinction. In the model, quasi-extinction is defined as the point in time at which the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle population declined to less than 5 percent of the starting abundance (females only). Time to quasi-extinction varied across scenarios, but in general, the Suwannee River basin is likely to reach this in 32-42 years (Service 2022, p. 46).

The final rule published May 21, 2024 (89 FR 44553), describes annual management measures for managing the harvest of salmon in federal waters. This correcting amendment corrects errors in the May 21, 2024 rule, by adding management measures for the recreational and commercial ocean salmon fisheries in the area from the Oregon/California border to the U.S./Mexico border. Specifically, the corrections are needed for the commercial ocean salmon fisheries from the Oregon/California border to Humboldt South Jetty (California Klamath Management Zone (KMZ)), recreational ocean salmon fisheries from the Oregon/California border to Latitude 40°10′ N, commercial and recreational ocean salmon fisheries from Latitude 40°10′ N to Point Arena (Fort Bragg), commercial and recreational ocean salmon fisheries from Point Arena to Pigeon Point (San Francisco), and commercial and recreational ocean salmon fisheries from Pigeon Point to the U.S./Mexico border (Monterey).

The 2024 salmon management measures (89 FR 44553, May 21, 2024), section 1, part A describes the commercial ocean salmon fisheries in the area from the Oregon/California border to the U.S./Mexico border. Section 2, part A describes the recreational ocean salmon fisheries in the area from the Oregon/California border to the U.S./Mexico border. The May 21, 2024 rule omitted certain management measures for commercial and recreational salmon fisheries off the coast of California, including Chinook salmon size limits.

NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to 305(d) of the MSA In a previous action taken pursuant to section 304(b), NMFS approved a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that authorizes the agency to take this action pursuant to MSA section 305(d). See 50 CFR 660.408. These regulations are being promulgated under the authority of 16 U.S.C. 1855(d) and 16 U.S.C. 773(c). The NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP and other applicable law.

The AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the requirement for prior notice and opportunity for additional public comment for this action as notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because this action simply corrects an error in the final rule. This correction does not affect the results of analyses conducted to support management decisions in the salmon fishery nor change the total catch of salmon. In addition, it is important that the errors be corrected as quickly as possible. The correction seeks to eliminate confusion on the part of the public that could prevent the prosecution of fisheries. Moreover, significant public participation took place in the process of developing the management measures through a process that involved state and Tribal governments and the Pacific Fishery Management Council. No aspect of this action is controversial and no change in operating practices in the fishery is required. For the same reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the AA finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.

Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are inapplicable.

This final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

In FR Doc. 2024-11046 appearing on page 44553, in the Federal Register of Tuesday, May 21, 2024, the following correction is made:

On page 44559, in the second column, the description of the commercial ocean salmon troll fishery in the area from the Oregon/California border to the U.S./Mexico border is corrected to read as follows:

Closed in 2024.

In 2025, the season will open May 1 through the earlier of May 31, or a 3,000 Chinook salmon quota. Chinook salmon minimum size limit of 27 inches (68.5 cm) total length. Landing and possession limit of 25 Chinook salmon per vessel per week. Open 5 days per week (Friday—Tuesday). All salmon except coho salmon. Any remaining portion of Chinook salmon quotas may be transferred inseason on an impact neutral basis to the next open quota period. All fish caught in this area must be landed within the area, within 24 hours of any closure of the fishery and prior to fishing outside the area. Electronic Fish Tickets must be submitted within 24 hours of landing. Klamath Control Zone closed. See California State regulations for an additional closure adjacent to the Smith River.

On page 44559, in the third column, the description of the commercial ocean salmon troll fishery in the area from the Oregon/California border to the U.S./Mexico border is corrected to read as follows:

Closed in 2024.

In 2025, the season opens April 16 for all salmon except coho salmon. Chinook salmon minimum size limit of 27 inches (68.5 cm) total length. Gear restrictions same as in 2022. Harvest guidelines and vessel-based landing and possession limits may be considered inseason. Inseason action to close fisheries, modify season dates, or modify vessel-based landing and possession limits may be considered when total commercial harvest in this management area is approaching its harvest guideline. Electronic Fish Tickets must be submitted within 24 hours of landing.

Closed in 2024.

In 2025, the season opens May 1 for all salmon except coho salmon. Chinook salmon minimum size limit of 27 inches (68.5 cm) total length). Gear restrictions same as in 2022. Harvest guidelines and vessel-based landing and possession limits may be considered inseason. Inseason action to close fisheries, modify season dates, or modify vessel-based landing and possession limits may be considered when total commercial harvest in this management area is approaching its harvest guideline. Electronic Fish Tickets must be submitted within 24 hours of landing.

Closed in 2024.

In 2025, the season opens May 1 for all salmon except coho salmon. Chinook salmon minimum size limit of 27 inches (68.5 cm) total length. Gear restrictions same as in 2022. Harvest guidelines and vessel-based landing and possession limits may be considered inseason. Inseason action to close fisheries, modify season dates, or modify vessel-based landing and possession limits may be considered when total commercial harvest in this management area is approaching its harvest guideline. Electronic Fish Tickets must be submitted within 24 hours of landing.

On page 44562, in the third column, the description of the recreational ocean salmon fishery in the area from the Oregon/California border to the U.S./Mexico border is correct to read as follows:

Closed in 2024.

In 2025, the season opens April 5 for all salmon except coho salmon, two salmon per day. Chinook salmon minimum size limit of 20 inches (50.8 cm) total length. Gear restrictions same as in 2022. Harvest guidelines and bag limits may be considered inseason. Inseason action to close fisheries, modify season dates, or modify the bag limit may be considered when total sport harvest is approaching a harvest guideline.

Closed in 2024.

In 2025, the season opens April 5 for all salmon except coho salmon, two salmon per day. Chinook salmon minimum size limit of 20 inches (50.8 cm) total length. Gear restrictions same as in 2022. Harvest guidelines and bag limits may be considered inseason. Inseason action to close fisheries, modify season dates, or modify the bag limit may be considered when total sport harvest is approaching a harvest guideline.

Closed in 2024.

In 2025, the season opens April 5 for all salmon except coho salmon, two salmon per day. Chinook salmon minimum size limit of 24 inches (61.0 cm) total length. Gear restrictions same as in 2022. Harvest guidelines and bag limits may be considered inseason. Inseason action to close fisheries, modify season dates, or modify the bag limit may be considered when total sport harvest is approaching a harvest guideline.

Closed in 2024.

In 2025, the season opens April 5 for all salmon except coho salmon, two salmon per day. Chinook salmon minimum size limit of 24 inches (61.0 cm) total length. Gear restrictions same as in 2022. Harvest guidelines and bag limits may be considered inseason. Inseason action to close fisheries, modify season dates, or modify the bag limit may be considered when total sport harvest is approaching a harvest guideline.

The annual management measures for the 2023-2024 ocean salmon fisheries (88 FR 30235, May 11, 2023) govern the commercial and recreational fisheries in the area from the United States/Canada border to the United States/Mexico border, effective from 0001 hours Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), May 16, 2023, until the effective date of the 2024-2025 management measures, as published in the Federal Register . These measures include early season fisheries in March through mid-May of 2024 that may be adjusted through inseason action when abundance forecasts for 2024 salmon returns become available. NMFS is authorized to implement inseason management actions to modify fishing seasons, catch limits, and quotas as necessary to provide fishing opportunity while meeting management objectives for the affected species (50 CFR 660.409). Inseason actions in the salmon fishery may be taken directly by NMFS (50 CFR 660.409(a)—Fixed inseason management provisions) or upon consultation with the Chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and the appropriate State Directors (50 CFR 660.409(b)—Flexible inseason management provisions).

Management of the salmon fisheries is divided into two geographic areas: north of Cape Falcon (NOF) (United States/Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR), and south of Cape Falcon (SOF) (Cape Falcon, OR, to the United States/Mexico border). The actions described in this document affect the SOF and NOF commercial and recreational fisheries, as set out under the heading Inseason Actions below.

Consultation with the Council Chairman on these inseason actions occurred on March 10, 2024, and April 23, 2024. These consultations included representatives from NMFS, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Representatives from the Salmon Advisory Subpanel and Salmon Technical Team (STT) were also present. A Council representative was present on March 10, 2024, and April 23, 2024.

These inseason actions were announced on NMFS' telephone hotline and U.S. Coast Guard radio broadcast on the date of the consultations (50 CFR 660.411(a)(2)).

At its March 5-11, 2024, meeting, the STT presented updated stock abundance forecasts for salmon stocks managed under the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Based on the STT's report, SOF ocean salmon fisheries will be constrained in 2024 by the very low abundance forecasts for Klamath River fall-run Chinook (KRFC) salmon and Sacramento River fall-run Chinook (SRFC) salmon. KRFC salmon continue to meet the criteria for overfished, which was determined under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) in 2018. In 2021, NMFS determined that SRFC had achieved rebuilt status (87 FR 25429) due to several years of higher escapements. However, the Sacramento River has been experiencing low flows and high temperatures in recent years associated with decades of frequent droughts; these conditions have adversely affected the stock. KRFC Chinook salmon expected abundance is low enough that the stock will be managed under the de minimus provisions of the harvest control rule in the FMP. In addition, the abundance of these stocks has been substantially over-forecast in recent years, and escapement have been much lower than anticipated preseason. To reduce the impacts on KRFC salmon and SRFC salmon given the low forecasts, NMFS took three inseason actions on March 11, 2024, concurrent with the March Council meeting to restrict some fisheries that were previously scheduled to open prior to May 16, 2023 (88 FR 30235, May 11, 2023).

The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator (RA) considered the abundance forecasts for Chinook salmon stocks and the projected impacts in the ocean salmon fisheries, as modeled by the STT, and determined that the inseason actions described below are necessary to meet management and conservation goals set preseason. These inseason actions modify landing and possession limits, quotas and/or fishing seasons under 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

Description of the action: Inseason action #32 modifies the SOF commercial salmon troll fishery. In the area between Cape Falcon, OR, and Humbug Mountain, OR, the commercial salmon troll fishery, is closed from March 15, 2024, at 12:01 a.m. through April 16, 2024, at 11:59 p.m.

Effective dates: Inseason action #32 takes effect on March 15, 2024, at 12:01 a.m. and remains in effect until April 16, 2024, at 11:59 p.m.

Description of the action: Inseason action #32 modifies the SOF commercial salmon troll fishery. In the area between Humbug Mountain and the Oregon/California border, the commercial salmon troll fishery is closed from March 15, 2024, at 12:01 a.m. through April 16, 2024, at 11:59 p.m.

Effective dates: Inseason action #33 takes effect on March 15, 2024, at 12:01 a.m. and remains in effect until April 16, 2024, at 11:59 p.m.

Description of the action: Inseason action #34 modifies the ocean salmon recreational fishery and the ocean salmon troll commercial fishery from the Oregon/California border to the United States/Mexico border. These fisheries are closed through May 15, 2024 or until superseded.

Effective dates: Inseason action #34 takes effect for the following areas and dates, and remains in effect until superseded.

• Effective May 1, 2024, at 12:01 a.m. for the ocean salmon troll commercial fishery from the Oregon/California border to Humboldt South Jetty (California Klamath Management Zone).

• Effective April 16, 2024, at 12:01 a.m. for the ocean salmon troll commercial fishery from lat. 40°10′ N to Point Arena, CA (Fort Bragg management area).

• Effective May 1, 2024, at 12:01 a.m. for the ocean salmon troll commercial fishery from Point Arena, CA, to Pigeon Point, CA (San Francisco management area).

• Effective May 1, 2024, at 12:01 a.m. for the ocean salmon troll commercial fishery from Pigeon Point, CA, to the United States/Mexico border (Monterey management area).

• Effective May 1, 2024, at 12:01 a.m. for the ocean salmon recreational fishery from the Oregon/California border to latitude 40°10' N (California Klamath Management Zone).

• Effective April 6, 2024, at 12:01 a.m. for the ocean salmon recreational fishery from latitude 40°10′ N and Point Arena, CA (Fort Bragg management area).

• Effective April 6, 2024, at 12:01 a.m. for the ocean salmon recreational fishery from Point Arena, CA to Pigeon Point, CA (San Francisco Management Area),

• Effective April 6, 2024, at 12:01 a.m. for the ocean salmon recreation fishery from Pigeon Point, CA to the United States/Mexico border (Monterey Management Area),

Reason and authorization for the action: The 2023-2024 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (88 FR 30235, May 11, 2023) established a May-June commercial salmon fishery that included NOF subarea quotas that were based on information available at the time the 2023 management measures were adopted. The 2023 management measures allow for inseason action to adjust fisheries scheduled to occur from March 15, 2024, through May 15, 2024 (or until the effective date of the 2024 management measures), in response to new information on 2024 salmon stock abundance forecasts and northern salmon fisheries impacts, to keep fisheries impacts within management objectives and consistent with conservation needs. In addition to adjusted quotas, the Council adopted a weekly landing and possession limit based on the calendar week (Thursday-Wednesday). Under the 2023-2024 regulations, the fishery opens on May 1, 2024, with an 8-day calendar week (Wednesday-Wednesday). Inseason action adjusts the landing and possession limits for the week of May 1, 2024, through May 8, 2024. Beginning May 9, 2024, the fishery reverts to the Thursday-Wednesday landing week.

The RA considered the abundance forecasts for Chinook salmon stocks, the timing of the action relative to the length of the season, and determined that the inseason action described above is necessary to meet management and conservation goals set preseason. This inseason action modifies quotas and/or fishing seasons, and landing boundaries under 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i) and (v).

Description of the action: Inseason action #35 modifies the ocean salmon troll commercial fishery from the United States/Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR.

Effective dates: Inseason action #35 takes effect for the following areas and dates, and remains in effect until superseded.

• Effective May 1, 2024, at 12:01 a.m., the quota for the May-June fishery is modified to 24,600 Chinook salmon, no more than 5,600 of which may be caught in the area between the United States/Canada border and the Queets River and no more than 5,710 of which may be caught in the area between Leadbetter Point and Cape Falcon.

• Effective May 1, 2024, at 12:01 a.m., the landing and possession limit for the entire area between Cape Falcon and the United States/Canada border is 150 Chinook salmon per vessel for the period May 1, 2024, through May 8, 2024, and 150 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday) beginning May 9, 2024, at 12:01 a.m.

• Effective May 1, 2024, at 12:01 a.m., the landing and possession limit in the area between the United States/Canada border and the Queets River is 60 Chinook salmon per vessel for the period May 1, 2024, through May 8, 2024, and 60 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday) beginning May 9, 2024, at 12:01 a.m.

• Effective May 1, 2024, at 12:01 a.m., the landing and possession limit in the area between the Queets River and Leadbetter Point is 150 Chinook salmon per vessel for the period May 1, 2024, through May 8, 2024, and 150 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday) beginning May 9, 2024, at 12:01 a.m.

• Effective May 1, 2024, at 12:01 a.m., the landing and possession limit in the area between Leadbetter Point and Cape Falcon is 60 Chinook salmon per vessel for the period May 1, 2024, through May 8, 2024, and 60 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday) beginning May 9, 2024, 12:01 a.m.

• Effective May 1, 2024, at 12:01 a.m., vessels fishing in a subarea north of Cape Falcon with a higher landing and possession limit may transit through and land in a subarea with a lower landing and possession limit, provided they meet reporting requirements when crossing the subarea boundary lines at Leadbetter Point or Queets River.

All other restrictions and regulations remain in effect as announced for the 2023-2024 ocean salmon fisheries (88 FR 30235, May 11, 2023; 88 FR 44737, July 13, 2023; 88 FR 51250, August 3, 2023; 88 FR 53813, August 9, 2023; 88 FR 58522, August 28, 2023; 88 FR 65824, September 26, 2023; 88 FR 77533, November 13, 2023) except as previously modified by inseason actions.

The states and Tribes manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (3-200 nautical miles; 5.6-370.4 kilometers) off the coasts of the States of Washington, Oregon, and California consistent with these Federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures at 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory actions was given, prior to the time the actions became effective, by telephone hotline numbers 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.

NMFS issues these actions pursuant to section 305(d) of the MSA. These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the MSA, and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action was impracticable because NMFS had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time Chinook and coho salmon abundance, catch, and effort information were developed and fisheries impacts were calculated, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to ensure that fisheries are managed based on the best scientific information available. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory action was provided to fishers through telephone hotlines and radio notifications. These actions comply with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (88 FR 30235, May 11, 2024), the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP), and regulations implementing the FMP under 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411.

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date, as a delay in effectiveness of this action would allow fishing at levels inconsistent with the goals of the FMP and the current management measures.

The final rule to implement amendment 55 to the Crab FMP (89 FR 47872, June 4, 2024) inadvertently omitted amendatory instructions to remove paragraphs 50 CFR 680.42(b)(7) and (8). NMFS is now correcting the final rule to reflect this omission and renumbering the amendatory instructions for subsequent changes to § 680.42.

In FR Doc. 2024-12230, published on June 4, 2024, at 89 FR 47872, on page 47877, in the third column, amendatory instruction 7 is corrected to read as follows: