Pursuant to the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425) (Act), it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order (Order) (7 CFR part 1222) is favored by a majority of eligible domestic manufacturers and importers of paper and paper-based packaging covered under the program. Until results of the referendum are ascertained, a moratorium on the collection of assessments from domestic manufacturers and importers under the Order is announced effective immediately in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The Order is authorized under the Act.

The representative period for establishing voter eligibility for the referendum shall be the period from January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Persons who are currently domestic manufacturers and have domestically manufactured 100,000 short tons or more of paper and paper-based packaging, and persons who are currently importers and have imported 100,000 short tons or more of paper and paper-based packaging, during the representative period are eligible to vote in the referendum. Persons who received an exemption from assessments pursuant to § 1222.53 for the entire representative period are ineligible to vote. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will provide the option for electronic balloting. The referendum will be conducted by express mail and electronic ballot from July 14, 2025, through July 25, 2025. Further details will be provided in the ballot instructions.

Section 518 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425) authorizes continuance referenda. Under § 1222.81(b) of the Order, USDA must conduct a referendum no later than seven years after the program became effective and every seven years thereafter; at the request of the Board established in this Order; at the request of 10 percent or more of the number of persons eligible to vote in a referendum as set forth under the Order; or at any time as determined by the Secretary to determine if persons subject to assessment favor continuance of the program. In January 2025, USDA received a petition requesting a referendum, which was signed by more than the required 10 percent of eligible entities. This request initiated this referendum process. Effective immediately, there will be a moratorium on the collection of assessments while USDA conducts the continuance referendum, per the request of the Paper and Packaging Board and in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act.

USDA would continue the Order if it is favored by a majority of domestic manufacturers and importers of paper and paper-based packaging voting in the referendum who also represent a majority of the volume of paper and paper-based packaging represented in the referendum and who, during the representative time period, have been engaged in the manufacturing or importation of paper and paper-based packaging. If continuance of the Order is favored, USDA would also lift the moratorium on assessment collection. If, as a result of the referendum, the Secretary determines that the Order is not approved, USDA will comply with the termination procedures at 7 CFR 1222.82.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the referendum ballot has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0093. It has been estimated that approximately 40 entities will be eligible to vote in the referendum. It will take an average of 15 minutes for each voter to read the voting instructions and complete the referendum ballot.

George Webster, Marketing Specialist, and Kelly Robertson, Acting Branch Chief, Mid-Atlantic Region Branch, Market Development Division, SCP, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, Room 1406-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0244, are designated as the referendum agents to conduct this referendum. The referendum procedures at 7 CFR 1222.100 through 1222.108, which were issued pursuant to the Act, shall be used to conduct the referendum.

The referendum agents will express mail ballots and voting instructions, including how to vote electronically, to all known, eligible domestic manufacturers and importers prior to the first day of the voting period. Any eligible domestic manufacturer or importer who does not receive a ballot should contact a referendum agent no later than three days before the end of the voting period. Ballots delivered via express mail or electronic ballot must show proof of delivery by no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on July 25, 2025.

On November 2, 2015, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act), Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584, was enacted. This act amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (the 1990 Inflation Adjustment Act), to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act required agencies to issue a final rule by August 1, 2016, to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment and to annually adjust these monetary penalties for inflation by January 15 of each subsequent year.

Based on the definition of a “civil monetary penalty” in the 1990 Inflation Adjustment Act, agencies are to make adjustments only to the civil penalties that (i) are for a specific monetary amount as provided by federal law or have a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; (ii) are assessed or enforced by an agency; and (iii) are enforced or assessed in an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts. Therefore, penalties that are stated as a percentage of an indeterminate amount or as a function of a violation (penalties that encompass actual damages incurred) are not to be adjusted.

SBA published in the Federal Register an interim final rule with its initial adjustments to the civil monetary penalties, including an initial “catch-up” adjustment, on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31489), with an effective date of August 1, 2016. SBA published its first annual adjustments to the monetary penalties on February 9, 2017 (82 FR 9967), with an immediate effective date. SBA published its subsequent annual adjustments for 2018 on February 21, 2018 (83 FR 7361), for 2019 on April 1, 2019 (84 FR 12059), for 2020 on March 10, 2020 (85 FR 13725), for 2021 on September 24, 2021 (86 FR 52955), for 2022 on May 11, 2022 (87 FR 28756), for 2023 on August 1, 2023 (88 FR 50003), and for 2024 on June 5, 2024 (89 FR 48132) all with immediate effective dates. This rule will establish the adjusted penalty amounts for 2025 with an immediate effective date upon publication.

On December 17, 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published its annual guidance memorandum for 2025 civil monetary penalties inflation adjustments (M-24-02, Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2025 pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015). The memorandum provides the formula for calculating the annual adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the adjustment, and specifically on the change between the October CPI-U preceding the date of adjustment and the prior year's CPI-U. Based on this methodology, the 2025 civil monetary penalty inflation adjustment factor is 1.02598 (October 2024 CPI-U (315.664)/October 2023 CPI-U (307.671)). The annual adjustment amounts identified in this rule were obtained by applying this multiplier of 1.02598 to those penalty amounts that were published in SBA's 2024 adjustments to civil monetary penalties at 89 FR 48132 (June 5, 2024).

This rule adjusts civil monetary penalties authorized by the Small Business Act, the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (SBI Act), the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, and the Byrd Amendment to the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act. These penalties and the implementing regulations are discussed below.

SBA licenses, regulates, and provides financial assistance to financial entities called small business investment companies (SBICs). Pursuant to section 315 of the SBI Act, 15 U.S.C. 687g, SBA may impose a penalty on any SBIC for each day that it fails to comply with SBA's regulations or directives governing the filing of regular or special reports. The penalty for non-compliance is incorporated in § 107.665 of the SBIC program regulations.

This rule amends § 107.665 to adjust the current civil penalty from $324 to $332 per day of failure to file. The current civil penalty of $324 was multiplied by the multiplier of 1.02598 to reach a product of $332, rounded to the nearest dollar.

According to the regulations at § 120.465, any SBA Supervised Lender, as defined in 13 CFR 120.10, that violates a regulation or written directive issued by the SBA Administrator regarding the filing of any regular or special report is subject to the civil penalty amount stated in § 120.465(b) for each day the company fails to file the report, unless the SBA Supervised Lender can show that there is reasonable cause for its failure to file. This penalty is authorized by section 23(j)(1) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 650(j)(1).

This rule amends § 120.465(b) to adjust the current civil penalty to $8,267 per day of failure to file from $8,058 per day of failure to file. The current civil penalty of $8,058 was multiplied by the multiplier of 1.02598 to reach a product of $8,267, rounded to the nearest dollar.

According to the regulations at § 120.1500(b), SBA may assess a civil monetary penalty against a 7(a) Lender. In determining whether to assess a civil monetary penalty and, if so, in what amount, SBA may consider: the gravity ( e.g., severity and frequency) of the violation; the history of previous violations; the financial resources and good faith of the 7(a) Lender; and any other matters as justice may require. This penalty is authorized by the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 657t(e)(2)(B).

This rule amends § 120.1500(b)(2) to adjust the current civil penalty from $298,887 to $306,652. The current civil penalty of $298,887 was multiplied by the multiplier of 1.02598 to reach a product of $306,652, rounded to the nearest dollar.

SBA has promulgated regulations at 13 CFR part 142 to implement the civil penalties authorized by the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (PFCRA), 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812. Under the current regulation at 13 CFR 142.1(b), a person who submits, or causes to be submitted, a false claim or a false statement to SBA is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $13,946 for each statement or claim.

This rule amends § 142.1(b) to adjust the current civil penalty from $13,946 to $14,308. The adjusted civil penalty amount was calculated by multiplying the current civil penalty of $13,946 by the multiplier of 1.02598 to reach a product of $14,308, rounded to the nearest dollar.

SBA's regulations at 13 CFR part 146 govern lobbying activities by recipients of federal financial assistance. These regulations implement the authority in 31 U.S.C. 1352 and impose penalties on any recipient that fails to comply with certain requirements in the part. Specifically, under § 146.400(a) and (b), penalties may be imposed on those who make prohibited expenditures or fail to file the required disclosure forms or to amend such forms, if necessary.

This rule amends § 146.400(a) and (b) to adjust the current civil penalty amounts to “not less than $25,132 and not more than $251,322.” The current civil penalty amounts of $24,496 and $244,958 were multiplied by the multiplier of 1.02598 to reach a product of $25,132 and $251,322, respectively, rounded to the nearest dollar.

This rule also amends § 146.400(e) to adjust the civil penalty that may be imposed for a first-time violation of § 146.400(a) and (b) to $25,132 and to adjust the civil penalty that may be imposed for second and subsequent offenses to “not less than $25,132 and not more than $251,322.” The current civil penalty amounts of $24,496 and $244,958 were multiplied by the multiplier of 1.02598 to reach a product of $25,132 and $251,322, respectively, rounded to the nearest dollar.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action meets applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.

For the purpose of Executive Order 13132, SBA determined that the rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, this final rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.

The APA requires agencies generally to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment before adopting a rule unless the agency for good cause finds that notice and comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The APA also requires agencies to allow at least 30-days after publication for a final rule to become effective “except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d). For the following reasons prior public notice, an opportunity for public comment, and a delayed effective date are not required for this rule. The 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act directs agencies to adjust their civil penalties annually notwithstanding section 553 of the APA. 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, sec. 4(b)(2).

This exemption from the notice and comment, and delayed effective date requirements of the APA, in effect provides SBA with the good cause justification to promulgate this as a final rule that will become effective immediately on the date it is published in the Federal Register . Additionally, the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act provides a non-discretionary cost-of-living formula for making the annual adjustment to the civil monetary penalties; SBA merely performs the ministerial task of calculating the amount of the adjustments. Therefore, even without the statutory exemption from the APA, notice and comment would be unnecessary.

The Office of Management and Budget determined that this rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

SBA has determined that this rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to consider the effect of their regulatory actions on small entities, including small non-profit businesses, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rule, the agency must prepare an analysis that describes whether the impact of the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of such small entities. However, the RFA requires such analysis only where notice and comment rulemaking is required. As stated above, SBA has express statutory authority to issue this rule without regard to the notice and comment requirement of the APA. Since notice and comment is not required before this rule is issued, SBA is not required to prepare a regulatory analysis.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR parts 107, 120, 142, and 146 as follows:

As set forth in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (Administrator) may issue air carrier, air operating, and air agency certificates. An application for a certificate must be under oath when the Administrator requires; and be in the form, contain information, and be filed and served in the way the Administrator prescribes. 1 Only when the FAA receives a complete application in a manner prescribed by the Administrator shall the entity be considered an applicant. 2 The FAA's certification offices have, in recent years, experienced significant backlog and resource constraints related to the timing and delay in responsiveness by applicants for various types of FAA certification. The notice described in the paragraph that follows provides updated guidance to inspectors to ensure all certifications continue proceeding in a timely fashion.

On May 23, 2025, the FAA published updated policy on processing air carrier, air operating, and air agency applications for certification. As provided in the revised policy, the FAA will no longer accept applications that are incomplete or not submitted in a form or manner acceptable to the Administrator. In addition, an applicant may withdraw its application at any point during the certification process and the FAA may terminate a certification in which the applicant does not proceed with certification requirements. The updated policy is found in Notice 8900.735: Disposition of Incomplete or Insufficient Air Operator and Air Agency Certification Applications.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2025 (90 FR 5756). The NPRM was prompted by reports of multiple supplier NOEs indicating that seat track splice fittings were possibly manufactured with an incorrect titanium alloy material. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection of seat track splice fittings to determine the material and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address seat track splice fittings manufactured with an incorrect titanium alloy material. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the seat track splice fittings, and could result in serious injury to seated occupants as a result of adverse effects on emergency egress and structural capability to react to emergency landing loads.

The FAA received comments from four anonymous commenters who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from three commenters, including Boeing, Air New Zealand, and the Foundation for Aviation Safety. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

The Foundation for Aviation Safety requested an explanation of the root cause of the use of the incorrect titanium alloy material, asked how its use was discovered and why the original process wasn't effective in identifying use of the incorrect material, and clarification on the preventive measures to keep this from happening again.

The FAA provides the following clarification. Boeing and the FAA have received reports of multiple supplier NOEs indicating that seat track splice fittings were possibly manufactured with an incorrect titanium alloy material. The FAA has determined the actions specified in this AD must be done to address the unsafe condition. The root cause of the use of the incorrect titanium alloy material is still under investigation. The FAA is working with Boeing to address the root cause. No change to this AD is necessary as a result of this comment.

Boeing and Air New Zealand requested an exception be added to the proposed AD to allow use of collars having part number (P/N) BACC30BS10K for tasks 17 and 18 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530086-00 RB, Issue 001, dated October 18, 2024. Air New Zealand stated tasks 17 and 18 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530086-00 RB, Issue 001, dated October 18, 2024, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530086-00, Issue 001, dated October 18, 2024, use collars having P/N BACC30BS10S. Air New Zealand further pointed out that table 18 of paragraph 3.A., Kits/Parts, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530086-00, Issue 001, dated October 18, 2024, lists collars having P/N BACC30BS10K for tasks 17 and 18. Boeing confirmed that both collars are structurally and functionally equivalent at these locations.

The FAA agrees with this request for the reasons provided. Paragraph (h) of the proposed AD has been reidentified as paragraph (h)(1) in this AD and paragraph (h)(2) has been added to this AD to provide the exception to allow P/N BACC30BS10K.

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530086-00 RB, Issue 001, dated October 18, 2024. This material specifies procedures for an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer inspection or a high frequency eddy current inspection of seat track splice fittings to determine the material and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include replacing affected seat track splice fittings with new seat track splice fittings at affected locations. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 37 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2024 (89 FR 104465). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2023-0030, dated February 2, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0030) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states missing electrical bonding was identified on a certain part-numbered search light installed on some Model EC 225 LP helicopters. The MCAI further states that the location where the search light is installed is an area that could get struck by lightning, which, in case of a lightning strike, could lead to potential total loss of electrical distribution, with loss of electrically supplied systems, and subsequent reduced control of the helicopter.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require installing an electrical bonding braid modification and prohibit installing that part-numbered search light unless the modification is done. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2663.

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

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

EASA AD 2023-0030 requires installing an electrical bonding braid modification for a certain part-numbered search light under the sponson. EASA AD 2023-0030 also prohibits installing that part-numbered search light from being installed unless its requirements are met.

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

The MCAI allows a +10% tolerance to the calendar compliance time to install the electrical bonding braid modification, whereas this AD does not allow that tolerance. If the insulation resistance value is 8 or more ohms as a result of the continuity test that is specified in the material referenced in EASA AD 2023-0030, this AD requires accomplishing corrective action in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval, whereas the MCAI and the material referenced in the MCAI are not specific about the continuity test.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 9 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Installing an electrical bonding braid modification takes 14 work-hours and parts cost $16,370 for an estimated cost of $17,560 per helicopter and up to $158,040 for the U.S. fleet.

Performing a continuity test takes a minimal amount of time for a nominal cost. Depending on the results, corrective action could vary significantly from helicopter to helicopter. The FAA has no data to determine the costs to accomplish the corrective action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2025 (90 FR 8690). The NPRM was prompted by a report of cracking found in new locations at STA 1640 during frame segment replacement repairs, including in the web at the K-hole between stringers S-9 and S-10, in the outer chord above the lower hinge intercostal, and in the inner chord and web between stringers S-10 and S-19. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection or records check for the presence of approved or local repairs, repetitive eddy current inspections for cracking, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address undetected cracks in the fuselage frame at STA 1640, which could affect a principal structural element's ability to sustain limit load. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

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

The FAA received additional comments from Aviation Partners Boeing (APB), FedEx, and an anonymous commenter. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

APB requested a revision to the mailing address identified in paragraph (k)(4) of the proposed AD. APB noted that the address identified in that paragraph is not current and provided an address that is current with the reissuance of supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01518SE, dated April 20, 2024.

The FAA agrees to revise the address and has revised the ADDRESSES section and paragraph (k)(4) of this AD with the current address.

FedEx requested an exception be added to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to address frame segment replacement repairs that meet certain criteria and are FAA-approved in accordance with FAA Form 8100-9 or 8110-3. FedEx reasoned that if existing frame segment replacement repairs are approved as alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) to other ADs, then those AMOCs should be extended to this proposed AD. FedEx stated that if the FAA does not include the suggested exception, then operators would need to apply for AMOCs for existing frame segment replacement repairs.

The FAA disagrees with the request to add this exception to paragraph (h) of this AD. The frame segment replacement repairs specified by FedEx are not identified in the Boeing Alerts Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0123 RB, dated March 13, 2024, and would need to be reviewed through the AMOC process specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Although existing frame segment replacement repairs might be approved as AMOCs to other ADs, the repairs have not been reviewed to determine if they also address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. No change has been made to this AD in this regard.

An individual commenter asked why the proposed AD was not already in effect and stated that the proposed rule should apply to every airline company.

The FAA agrees to clarify. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.5, the FAA issues an AD when an unsafe condition exists or is likely to develop in other products of the same type design. An AD will apply to products (aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances) that either has or is likely to develop the unsafe condition. 14 CFR 39.7 specifies that once an AD is issued, no person may operate a product to which the AD applies except in accordance with the requirements of that AD. This AD was not previously issued because this safety issue was only recently found in service. Once the safety issue was reported, the FAA initiated the rulemaking process after performing an analysis of the findings and determining that an unsafe condition exists. The analysis led to the determination that this AD is applicable only to Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. Thus, only operators of these affected models are required to comply with this AD.

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0123 RB, dated March 13, 2024. This material specifies procedures for an inspection or records check for the presence of approved repairs at STA 1640 frame between stringers S-9 and S-19, left and right sides, or local repairs at specified locations at STA 1640; repetitive eddy current inspections for cracking of the STA 1640 frame inner chord, web and outer chord at specified locations; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include contacting Boeing for repair.

The FAA also reviewed Aviation Partners Boeing Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-006, dated May 7, 2024. This material specifies procedures for an inspection or records check for the presence of approved repairs at STA 1640 frame between stringers S-9 and S-19, left and right sides, or local repairs at specified locations at STA 1640, repetitive eddy current inspections for cracking of the STA 1640 frame inner chord, web and outer chord at specified locations, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include contacting Boeing for repair.

These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 481 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain GE Model GEnx-1B64, GEnx-1B64/P1, GEnx-1B64/P2, GEnx-1B67, GEnx-1B67/P1, GEnx-1B67/P2, GEnx-1B70, GEnx-1B70/75/P1, GEnx-1B70/75/P2, GEnx-1B70/P1, GEnx-1B70/P2, GEnx-1B70C/P1, GEnx-1B70C/P2, GEnx-1B74/75/P1, GEnx-1B74/75/P2, GEnx-1B76/P2, GEnx-1B76A/P2, and GEnx-2B67/P engines. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2025 (90 FR 8687). The NPRM was prompted by a manufacturer's investigation that revealed the detection of iron inclusion in turbine disks manufactured from the same powder metal material used to manufacture certain HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks for the above-referenced engines. Further investigation by the manufacturer revealed that the iron inclusion is attributed to deficiencies in the manufacturing process and may cause reduced material properties and a lower fatigue life capability, which may result in premature fracture and uncontained failure. The manufacturer also informed the FAA that additional risk assessments determined that there were no failed events associated with the discovery of this iron inclusion material; however, concluded that replacement of the affected HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks is necessary to prevent any future failed events. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacement of affected HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks with parts eligible for installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from six commenters. The commenters were the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), The Boeing Company (Boeing), Cathay Pacific Airways, Thai Airways, United Airlines, and an individual commenter. ALPA and Boeing supported the NPRM without change. The following presents the comments received from Cathay Pacific Airways, Thai Airways, United Airlines, and the individual commenter and the FAA's response.

Cathay Pacific Airways requested that the FAA clarify whether the affected part may be reinstalled after being removed from an engine if the part has not reached the cyclic removal threshold identified in GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin 72-0542 R00, dated April 15, 2024 (GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0542 R00) and GE GEnx-2B SB 72-0471 R00, dated April 15, 2024 (GE GEnx-2B Service Bulletin 72-0471 R00).

The FAA agrees to clarify. Because the compliance time of this final rule is at a certain number of cycles or at the next piece part exposure after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first, the affected part must be removed from service and is not eligible to be re-installed during piece part exposure. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Thai Airways noted that GE Model GEnx-1b engines with engine serial numbers 958136, 958164, and 958949 are not affected by GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0542 R00.

The FAA clarifies that the applicability for this AD is not designated by engine serial number, but it is designated by specific part numbers and serial numbers of affected parts. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

United Airlines requested that the FAA update the language in the “Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM” paragraph of the proposed AD to the following: “Depending on the part numbers and serial numbers of the affected HPT stage 1 disks and HPT stage 2 disks, this NPRM proposes to require these actions to be accomplished at the next piece-part exposure after the effective date of this proposed AD or before the affected HPT stage 1 disks and HPT stage 2 disks reach the cyclic removal threshold of up to 10,100 cycles since new, whichever occurs first.”

The FAA agrees with the content in the requested language. However, this section is not included in the final rule. Therefore, the FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

An individual commenter requested that the FAA provide information on what material the new HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks that are eligible for installation will be composed of, how long these parts will take to deteriorate, and how these new parts will be tested to assure they will be more viable than the affected HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks.

The FAA clarifies that the design of the HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks is unchanged by this AD. The iron inclusions are a result of a deficiency in the manufacturing process, which has since been addressed by the manufacturer. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

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

The FAA reviewed GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0542 R00. The FAA also reviewed GE GEnx-2B SB 72-0471 R00. This material specifies the affected part numbers, serial numbers, and cyclic removal thresholds for the HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects one engine installed on an airplane of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that no engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry require replacement of the HPT stage 2 disk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it amends Class D and Class E airspace in Goldsboro, NC.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2024-1984 in the Federal Register (89 FR 94629; November 29, 2024), proposing to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Wayne Memorial Hospital Inc. Heliport, Goldsboro, NC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Goldsboro, NC, by increasing the airspace within a 6-mile radius of Wayne Memorial Hospital Inc. Heliport, Goldsboro, NC. Additionally, this removes the city associated with the airports in the airspace legal description header and updates Wayne Executive Jetport, NC, and Mount Olive Municipal Airport, NC, to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2R, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. Also, this action would replace the terms Airport/Facility Directory with Chart Supplement in the Class D description. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations in the area.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. 2024-1984 in the Federal Register (89 FR 94629; November 29, 2024), proposing to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Wayne Memorial Hospital Inc. Heliport, Goldsboro, NC. This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the NPRM to include an administrative update to the legal description of Seymour Johnson AFB. After the NPRM was issued, Executive Order 14172, Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness, was issued, which mandates a return to the term “Notice to Airmen”. As such, this action no longer proposes the replacement of the terms Notice to Airmen with Notice to Air Missions. This amendment also updates the coordinates of Wayne Memorial Hospital Inc. Heliport, Goldsboro, NC, to lat. 35°23′58″ N, long. 77°57′15″ W, as updated coordinates have become available since the publishing of the NPRM. Because these are administrative changes that impose no additional requirements on users of the airspace, the FAA has determined that good cause exists to proceed with this action without recirculating the NPRM for public comment.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D airspace in Jupiter, FL for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2025-0107 in the Federal Register (90 FR 13571; March 25, 2025), proposing to amend Class D in Jupiter, FL. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received, which was substantively unrelated to the airspace action. No response is provided.

Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies Class D airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of William P. Gwinn Airport in Jupiter, FL, beginning at the 205° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 145° bearing, thence to the beginning point. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations in the area.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The placement of 2-methyl AP-237 under schedule I was effective on April 15, 2024, thirty days after the publication of the final order. 1 During the 30-day period between the publication of the final order and effective date, DEA issued another final order scheduling three nitazene substances—etodesnitazene, N -pyrrolidino etonitazene, and protonitazene—into schedule I as of the date of the publication of the final order. 2 The publication of the three nitazene substances final order and the effective date of that final order predated the effective date of the 2-methyl AP-237 final order. Consequently, the amended paragraphs in 21 CFR part 1308 regarding 2-methyl AP-237 were incorrect. Nonetheless, the final order correctly placed 2-methyly AP-237 under 21 CFR 1308.11(b). Therefore, the placement of 2-methyl AP-237 under schedule I has been effective as of April 15, 2024, despite the technical errors in the paragraph of 21 CFR part 1308 in the final order. 3

For the reasons set out above, DEA corrects 21 CFR part 1308 with the following correcting amendment:

This document may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. The website is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's website at: www.federalregister.gov.

FHWA had initiated a rulemaking titled “Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning,” under Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 2125-AF98, to update the regulations pertaining to FHWA's transportation planning requirements in title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 450. This rulemaking project was listed on FHWA's Unified Agenda, however no notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register .

Consistent with President Trump's commitment to ending unlawful, unnecessary, and onerous regulations, FHWA is reviewing its existing regulations and ongoing regulatory activities for alignment with law and Administration priorities. FHWA is withdrawing this rulemaking activity because further rulemaking action does not align with Agency needs, priorities, and objectives. FHWA continues to consider the best means of addressing some or all of the issues surrounding its transportation planning regulations and the scope of any Agency actions FHWA concludes may be necessary to address these issues.

In addition, all Agencies participate in the semi-annual Unified Agenda, which provides a summary description of the rulemaking actions that each Agency is considering or reviewing. Agencies' agendas are posted on the public website of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and portions are published in the Federal Register in the spring and fall of each year. The Unified Agenda is often used as a tool to solicit interest and participation from stakeholders. Termination of this rulemaking will allow FHWA to better align its entries on the Department's Unified Agenda with the Agency's needs, priorities, and objectives.

Accordingly, for these independently sufficient reasons, FHWA is terminating the rulemaking associated with RIN 2125-AF98. By terminating the rulemaking, FHWA is indicating that it no longer considers this rulemaking to be pending. Should the FHWA decide at a future date to initiate the same or similar rulemaking, FHWA will initiate a new rulemaking under a new RIN, consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, title 5, United States Code, 553.

This document may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov. The website is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's website at www.federalregister.gov.

FHWA had initiated a rulemaking titled “National Performance Management Measures for Assessing Bridge Condition” RIN 2125-AF95, to address data collection and reporting inconsistencies between the title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 490 subparts A and D and the updated 23 CFR part 650 subpart C National Bridge Inspection Standards and its incorporated references. These inconsistencies will now be addressed as part of the “National Performance Management Measures” RIN 2125-AG06 rulemaking effort. This rulemaking project was listed on FHWA's Unified Agenda, however no Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register .

All Agencies participate in the semi-annual Unified Agenda, which provides a summary description of the regulatory actions that each Agency is considering or reviewing. Agencies' agendas are posted on the public website of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and portions are published in the Federal Register in the spring and fall of each year. The Unified Agenda is often used as a tool to solicit interest and participation from stakeholders. Withdrawal of this rulemaking activity will allow FHWA to better align its entries on the Department's Unified Agenda with the Agency's needs, priorities, and objectives. Accordingly, FHWA is terminating the rulemaking associated with RIN 2125-AF95.

Section 518 of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1268, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assess civil monetary penalties (CMPs) for violations of SMCRA. The Federal regulations implementing the CMP provisions of section 518 are located in 30 CFR parts 723, 724, 845, and 846. The Department of the Interior, through the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), is adjusting CMPs in six sections: 30 CFR 723.14, 723.15, 724.14, 845.14, 845.15, and 846.14.

On November 2, 2015, the President signed the 2015 Act into law (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74). The 2015 Act, which further amended the 1990 Act (Pub. L. 101-410), requires Federal agencies to promulgate rules to adjust the level of CMPs to account for inflation. The 2015 Act requires agencies to publish annual inflation adjustments. These adjustments are aimed at maintaining the deterrent effect of civil penalties and furthering the policy goals of the statutes that authorize the penalties.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance on the 2025 annual adjustments for inflation. See OMB Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (M-25-02), Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2025, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, December 17, 2024, (OMB Memorandum). The OMB Memorandum notes that the 1990 Act defines “civil monetary penalty” as “any penalty, fine, or other sanction that . . . is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law; or . . . has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; and . . . is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and . . . is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts. . . .” Id. at 2-3. It further instructs that agencies “are to adjust ‘the maximum civil monetary penalty or the range of minimum and maximum civil monetary penalties, as applicable, for each civil monetary penalty by the cost-of-living adjustment.’ ” Id. at 3.

The 1990 Act, as amended by the 2015 Act, and the OMB Memorandum specify that the annual inflation adjustments are based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (the CPI-U) published by the Department of Labor for the month of October in the year of the previous adjustment and the October CPI-U for the preceding year. The recent OMB Memorandum specified that the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2025, not seasonally adjusted, is 1.02598. Id. at 2.

OSMRE used this guidance to identify applicable CMPs and calculate the required inflation adjustments. The 1990 Act, as amended by the 2015 Act, specifies that any resulting increases in CMPs must be rounded to the nearest multiple of one dollar and that the increased CMPs apply only to CMP assessments that occur after the date that the increases take effect.

Generally, OSMRE assigns points to a violation as described in 30 CFR 723.13 and 845.13. The CMP owed is based on the number of points received, ranging from 1 point to 70 points. For example, under the existing regulations in 30 CFR 845.14, a violation totaling 70 points would amount to a $20,457 CMP. To adjust this amount, OSMRE multiplied $20,457 by the 2025 inflation factor of 1.02598, resulting in a raw adjusted amount of $20,988.47. Because the 2015 Act requires rounding any increase in the CMP amount to the nearest dollar, in this case a violation of 70 points would amount to a new CMP of $20,988. Pursuant to the 2015 Act, the increases in this Final Rule apply to CMPs assessed after the date the increases take effect, even if the associated violation predates the applicable increase.

There are no points associated with 30 CFR 723.15(b), 724.14(b), 845.15(b), and 846.14(b) because those regulatory provisions do not set forth numbers of points, only dollar amounts.

OSMRE directly regulates surface coal mining and reclamation operations within a State or on Indian lands if the State or Tribe does not obtain its own approved program pursuant to sections 503 or 710(j) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1253 or 1300(j). The increases in CMPs contained in this rule will apply to the following Federal program States: Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington. The Federal programs for those States appear at 30 CFR parts 903, 905, 910, 912, 921, 922, 933, 937, 939, 941, 942, and 947, respectively. Under 30 CFR 750.18, the increases in CMPs also apply to Indian lands under the Federal program for Indian lands.

As a result of litigation, State regulatory programs are not required to mirror all of the penalty provisions of the Federal regulations implementing SMCRA. See In re Permanent Surface Mining Regul. Litig., No. 79-1144, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17722, at *21-23 (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 1980); 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17660, at *87-88 (D.D.C. May 16, 1980). Thus, this rule has no effect on CMPs in States with SMCRA primacy.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that agency regulations exclusively implementing the annual inflation adjustments and that are consistent with OMB Memorandum M-23-05, such as this rule, are not significant. Because this final rule exclusively implements the annual inflation adjustments, is consistent with the OMB Memorandum, and will have an annual impact of less than $100 million, it is not significant under E.O. 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). The 2015 Act requires agencies to adjust civil penalties annually for inflation “notwithstanding section 553 [of the Administrative Procedure Act].” Thus, no proposed rule will be published, and the RFA does not apply to this rulemaking.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Congressional Review Act. This rule:

(a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. OSMRE has evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy, under Departmental Manual part 512, chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and has determined that it has no substantial direct effects on Federally recognized Tribes or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations, and that consultation under the Department's Tribal and ANCSA consultation policies is not required.

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) is not required. OSMRE may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) because of the non-discretionary nature of the civil penalty adjustment as required by law ( see 40 CFR 1508.1(w)(2)(vii)). The 2015 Act requires OSMRE to annually adjust the amounts of its civil penalties to account for inflation as measured by the Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index. Accordingly, OSMRE has no discretion in the execution of the civil penalty adjustments reflected in this final rule. Because this rule is not a major Federal action, it is therefore not subject to the requirements of NEPA. Even if this were a discretionary action subject to NEPA, which it is not, a detailed statement under NEPA would nevertheless not be required because, as a regulation of an administrative nature, this rule would otherwise be covered by a categorical exclusion ( see 43 CFR 46.210(i)). OSMRE has determined that the rule does not implicate any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would prevent reliance on the categorical exclusion. Therefore, a detailed statement under NEPA is not required.

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

OSMRE is issuing this final rule without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment. The 2015 Act requires agencies to publish adjusted penalties annually. Under the 2015 Act, “the notice and comment process the [Administrative Procedure Act] generally requires— i.e., notice, an opportunity for comment, and a delay in effective date—is not required for agencies to issue regulations implementing the annual adjustment[s]” required by the 2015 Act. See OMB Memorandum, M-25-02, at 4.

The action taken herein is pursuant to an existing delegation of authority.

For the reasons given in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR parts 723, 724, 845, and 846 as set forth below:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone regulations in Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, 33 CFR 165.1123, for the Big Bay Boom Fourth of July Fireworks regulated area from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2025. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Item No. 5 in Table 1 to § 165.1123 identifies the regulated area for the Big Bay Boom Fourth of July Fireworks event which encompasses multiple portions of San Diego Bay. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

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

On November 25, 2024, the EPA proposed to determine, based on the most recent three years (2021-2023) of complete (or otherwise validated), quality-assured, and certified data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, that the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area attained the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. 1 2 In conjunction with and based on our proposed determination that the South Coast area had attained and was currently attaining the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1015, the EPA proposed to issue a CDD for the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area for those NAAQS.

The EPA's proposal explained that if we were to finalize the proposal, the requirements for the area to submit an attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress plan, quantitative milestones and quantitative milestone reports, contingency measures, and any other SIP revisions related to attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS would be suspended so long as the area continues to meet the standards. Our proposal noted that California had already submitted an attainment plan titled “Final South Coast Air Basin Attainment Plan for 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 Standard” (“South Coast PM 2.5 Plan”)  3 to address these requirements and that the EPA would evaluate and act on the remaining SIP elements in the submitted plan through subsequent rulemakings, as appropriate. 4 We also explained that a CDD does not constitute a redesignation to attainment, and that the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area will remain designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS until such time as the EPA determines, pursuant to sections 107 and 175A of the CAA, that the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan showing that the area will continue to meet the standards for 10 years. 5

Finally, as authorized in CAA section 110(k)(3), we proposed to approve the base year emissions inventory in the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1) based on our evaluation and finding that the inventory fulfills all relevant requirements.

Please see our November 25, 2024 proposed rulemaking  6 for additional background and a detailed explanation of the rationale for our proposed action.

The public comment period on the proposed rulemaking opened on November 25, 2024, 7 the date of its publication in the Federal Register , and closed on December 26, 2024. We did not receive any public comments on our proposal.

Preliminary data available in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) for 2024 (January through December) indicate that the area continues to show concentrations consistent with attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. 8 Thus, for the reasons discussed in detail in the proposed rulemaking and summarized herein, the EPA is taking final action to determine, based on the most recent three years (2021-2023) of complete (or otherwise validated), quality-assured, and certified data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, that the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Based on our determination that the South Coast area has attained and is currently attaining the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1015, the EPA is issuing a CDD for the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Consequently, the requirements for this area to submit any remaining attainment-related SIP revisions will be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain those NAAQS. These attainment-related SIP revisions include the attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress plan, quantitative milestones and quantitative milestone reports, contingency measures, and any other SIP revisions related to the attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. As discussed in our proposal, on December 29, 2020, California submitted a SIP revision to address these requirements. The EPA intends to evaluate and act on the remaining SIP elements in this submission through subsequent rulemakings, as appropriate.

This CDD does not constitute a redesignation to attainment. The South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area will remain designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS until such time that the EPA determines, pursuant to sections 107 and 175A of the CAA, that the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan showing that the area will continue to meet the standards for 10 years.

We are also finalizing approval of the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan's 2018 base year emissions inventory as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1). As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is approving the submitted base year emissions inventory based on our determination that it fulfills all relevant requirements.

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

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

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action finds that the South Coast PM 2.5 nonattainment area is attaining the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS and approves the base year emissions inventory in the South Coast PM 2.5 Plan. Thus, this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely finalizes a CDD and approval of a base year emissions inventory as meeting Federal requirements. Furthermore, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health does not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 4, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Scarlet macaws ( Ara macao ) have the broadest range of all the macaw species (Ridgely 1981, p. 250). The range of the species extends from Mexico, south through Central America, and into the Amazon of South America to central Bolivia and Brazil. In Mexico and Central America, the scarlet macaw's historical range and population have been reduced and fragmented over the last several decades primarily because of habitat destruction and collection of wild birds for the pet trade (Vaughan et al. 2003, pp. 2-3; Collar 1997, p. 421; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 101; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150). The majority (83 percent) of the species' range and population lies within the Amazon biome of South America (Birdlife International (BLI) 2011a, unpaginated; BLI 2011b, unpaginated; BLI 2011c, unpaginated). In South America, the scarlet macaw occurs over much of its historical range within the Amazon and occurs in small areas outside the Amazon, such as west of the Andes Mountains in Colombia.

The scarlet macaw is classified as two subspecies, the northern subspecies ( A. macao cyanoptera ) and southern subspecies ( A. macao macao ) (Schmidt 2013, pp. 52-53; Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 735). The northern subspecies of scarlet macaw ranges from Mexico, south through Central America in Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras, and down the Atlantic slope of Costa Rica, as well as on Isla Coiba in Panama. The southern subspecies of scarlet macaw occurs along the Pacific slope of Costa Rica and southward through mainland Panama and into the remainder of the species' range in South America. The subspecies are separated by the Central Cordilleras in Costa Rica (Schmidt 2013, pp. 52-53; Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 744).

On February 26, 2019, we published in the Federal Register a final rule under the Act (84 FR 6278; 2019 final rule). The 2019 final rule was the outcome of a rulemaking proceeding that began with a proposed rule (77 FR 40222, July 6, 2012; 2012 proposed rule) and a revised proposed rule (81 FR 20302, April 7, 2016; 2016 proposed rule). The 2019 final rule revised the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (at 50 CFR 17.11(h)) to add the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw ( A. m. cyanoptera ) as an endangered species, the northern DPS of the southern subspecies ( A. m. macao ) as a threatened species (hereafter, “the northern DPS”), and the southern DPS of the southern subspecies ( A. m. macao ) and subspecies crosses ( A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao ) as threatened species due to similarity of appearance. The 2019 final rule also added protective regulations to 50 CFR 17.41 pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act for the northern and southern DPSs of the southern subspecies and for subspecies crosses. For a more thorough discussion of the taxonomy, life history, distribution, and the determination of listing status for scarlet macaws under the Act, please refer to the Species Information section in the 2019 final rule (84 FR 6278 at 6284, February 26, 2019).

We are reassessing whether the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw ( A. m. macao ) is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range (SPR) in response to an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Friends of Animals v. Williams, Case No. 1:21-cv-02081-RC. On April 3, 2023, in compliance with the Court's order, we published an initial SPR analysis and final threatened species determination for the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (88 FR 19549; hereafter, “the 2023 SPR analysis”). Having determined that the northern DPS is not in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, we did not propose to revise the status of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw in the northern DPS. Therefore, we affirmed the listing of the scarlet macaw as set forth in the 2019 final rule. However, on July 10, 2024, the Court found that we inappropriately limited the scope of public comments in the 2022 reconsideration. The Court vacated the 2023 SPR analysis and remanded it to us to reconduct after soliciting and considering public comments on the relevant, substantive issues.

On October 8, 2024, the Court further ordered that, “if the Service receives no public comments on the SPR analysis that result in the need to repropose the listing decision for the Northern DPS, the Service will submit a final SPR analysis to the Office of the Federal Register no later than 120 days from the end of the public comment period.” The Court's Order continued, “if the Service does receive public comments on the SPR analysis that cause it to reconsider the Northern DPS's listing determination, the Service will need additional time to revise the listing determination to incorporate analysis of those comments and any additional data that addresses them. If this additional analysis leads the Service to reach a different listing determination that the public could not have anticipated, the Service may need to revise and repropose the Northern DPS listing determination. The Service will then submit any such re-proposal to the Office of the Federal Register no later than September 30, 2025.” The 2019 final rule has remained in effect, including with respect to the listing status (threatened species) and protective regulations under the species-specific section 4(d) rule for the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw.

In the December 26, 2024, Federal Register document (89 FR 104950), we requested any interested party to submit comments on the 2023 SPR analysis for the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of the scarlet macaw ( A. m. macao ), with no limitations on the comments requested. We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues. In total, we received two non-substantive comments and one comment letter, with four attachments, that raised multiple substantive issues. We address these substantive comments below.

Comment (1): Commenter Friends of Animals claimed that in 2012 we determined that the northern DPS in Costa Rica was endangered.

Our response: Before issuance of the 2019 final rule, the scarlet macaw—including the northern DPS—was not a species listed under the Act. We issued two proposed listing rules for the scarlet macaw before the 2019 final rule: the 2012 proposed rule (77 FR 40222, July 6, 2012) and the 2016 proposed rule (81 FR 20302, April 7, 2016). Friends of Animals repeatedly refers to the 2012 proposed rule as if it represented a final agency action, as opposed to a proposal which, by definition, is subject to change. The fact that the 2016 proposed rule and 2019 final rule differed from the 2012 proposed rule does not mean the agency “reversed course” and must therefore provide more justification for its northern DPS listing decision than is typically required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ). A final rule may properly differ from a proposed rule and indeed must so differ when the record evidence warrants the change ( USW v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). Friends of Animals previously raised this issue in litigation, and our threatened listing determination was upheld by the Court in its July 10, 2024 opinion.

Comment (2): Friends of Animals stated that we did not use the best available science in making the final (2019) determination for the northern DPS.

Our response: The Act requires us to make a determination using the best scientific and commercial data available. We based our 2019 decision to list the northern DPS as a threatened species on the best scientific and commercial data available and adequately explained our reasons for doing so (84 FR 6278 at 6308), including why the final listing differed from the 2012 proposal (84 FR 6278 at 6278-6279). We also considered the new information provided as a result of the 2024 document opening a comment period, and for reasons described below, we are re-affirming our final threatened determination for the northern DPS. Friends of Animals previously raised this issue in litigation, and the Court upheld our threatened listing determination and its use of best available science in its July 10, 2024 opinion.

Comment (3): Friends of Animals stated that a peer reviewer of the 2012 proposed rule displayed pervasive biases in public statements that undermine their previous statements and comment submissions to the Service. Friends of Animals included as an attachment a November 2024 article that quotes the peer reviewer.

Our response: Friends of Animals' claim about the peer reviewer does not reflect the record, including why the 2019 final rule differed from the 2012 proposed rule. The record includes the peer reviewers' comments on both the 2012 and 2016 proposed rules. No peer reviewer feedback is accepted without question, and we consider it in light of other scientific information and expert comments. Our decision was based on the best scientific and commercial data available, including all the information we received following the initiation of the status review for the scarlet macaw in 2012 and in response to the 2016 proposed rule. This information included studies from a species expert and conservation organizations within the scarlet macaw's range countries. We examined the species' range; distribution and abundance; and all the Section 4(a)(1) factors affecting the species, including the destruction and modification of the species' habitat because of deforestation and forest degradation and threats posed by legal and illegal trade, including poaching (84 FR 6278 at 6290-6304, February 26, 2019). Lastly, Friends of Animals' attachment, selective quoting of the peer reviewer, does not directly display pervasive bias because the topic of attachment is on parental chick raising behavior, not on the status of all scarlet macaws.

Comment (4): Friends of Animals stated that the Service must conduct an SPR analysis that does not tie “significant” to the overall survival of the northern DPS. They stated that the Service appeared to be saying that a portion of the range can only be significant if its loss would jeopardize the continued viability of the northern DPS. They further stated that such reasoning is contrary to the plain meaning of the Act, and multiple courts have held that this very type of SPR analysis is arbitrary and capricious.

Our response: We disagree with Friends of Animals that we have applied an arbitrary and capricious definition of “significant.” They appear to suggest that we conducted a “hypothetical loss test” as was our practice outlined in the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (hereafter, 2014 SPR policy; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). In actuality, we did not apply any aspect of the 2014 SPR policy definition of significant, including this hypothetical loss test, for the SPR analysis of the northern DPS of the scarlet macaw. We also did not state that a portion can only be significant if its loss would jeopardize the continued viability of the northern DPS. In our 2023 SPR analysis, we assessed whether a portion contributing meaningfully to the northern DPS' overall resiliency and representation or by itself will have only a minimal impact on the viability of the northern DPS (88 FR 19549 at 19557-19558, April 3, 3023). Contributing to viability is not the same standard as significant. In this final SPR analysis, we further clarify that we considered several factors related to the conservation value of a portion of the range for the species.

Comment (5): Friends of Animals stated that the Service must attempt to quantify the portion of the northern DPS's range when determining whether the portions are significant, consistent with analysis of other species. They suggest that Panama and northwest Colombia are significant portions of the northern DPS's range because they constitute most of the range and contain very large areas of suitable forested habitat. The commenter provided a range analysis as an attachment. They also provided several examples of previous determinations for other species where the Service has quantified portions of its range to help determine significant portion of its range.

Our response: The Act requires us to make a determination using the best scientific and commercial data available. We appreciate the additional information provided by Friends of Animals and have updated our SPR analysis below to better reflect our understanding of the current range of the northern DPS. As discussed further below, we have included this information in our reassessment of whether the northern DPS is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range. As discussed in response to comment 4, above, to determine whether a portion of the range is “significant,” we consider several factors that are related to the conservation value of a portion of the range for the species. A strict numerical quantification of the proportion of the range that a portion constitutes is not a requisite for analysis of significance, nor is the mere presence of suitable habitat confirmatory evidence of significance.

Comment (6): Friends of Animals stated that the Service did not provide clear evidence to support the determination that the northern DPS in Costa Rica consists of two different populations. Per the commenter, the “range analysis,” particularly reported sightings from eBird, instead strongly show the northern DPS in Costa Rica to be one population.

Our response: The two populations on the Pacific slope in Costa Rica are referred to as the Área de Conservación Pacífico Central (ACOPAC) and the Southern Pacific Costa Rica (Área de Conservación Osa (ACOSA)) populations. According to the best scientific and commercial data available, the scarlet macaw population in ACOPAC has been expanding from the traditional stronghold in and around Carara National Park (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 11). The ACOSA population is simultaneously expanding up the coast. Thus, scarlet macaws observed between the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations may represent individuals from either of the populations, and it is difficult to distinguish between expansion of the ACOPAC population to the south and the expansion of the ACOSA population to the north (Dear et al. 2010, p. 10; Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 11). Although we recognize scarlet macaws between the Osa Peninsula (ACOSA) and Carara National Park (ACOPAC) may come from either population, all are considered part of the northern DPS in Costa Rica for the purposes of this determination. We retain reference to these two populations solely for historical context on the status of the northern DPS as a whole.

Comment (7): Friends of Animals suggests that Colombia and Panama portions of the northern DPS's range are “significant” because they represent two of the three countries in which the northern DPS is found.

Our response: We do not consider geopolitical information as part of whether a portion of the range is “significant.” We consider the conservation value of the portion and its contribution to species' viability.

Comment (8): Friends of Animals suggests that the Colombia and Panama portions of the northern DPS's range are “significant” because they provide a safeguard for the northern DPS if regulatory mechanisms, or a natural disaster, disease, or other tragedy decimates the northern DPS in Costa Rica.

Our response: The best scientific and commercial data available, as considered and explained in our decision file does not suggest that natural disasters, disease, or lack of regulatory mechanisms are threats to scarlet macaws in the northern DPS in Costa Rica, and Friends of Animals did not provide new information regarding these threats. Further, we do not assess whether the loss of individuals of a species within one part of the range results in another part of the species' range being a “significant portion of its range.” The construction of this argument would be akin (although inverse) to the hypothetical loss test previously vacated by the courts (see response to comment 4).

Comment (9): Friends of Animals suggested that the Colombia and Panama portions of the northern DPS's range are significant because these portions include unique-value habitat relative to the rest of the habitat in the range. Both Colombia and Panama have large stretches of continuous forest, far larger than any continuous forest habitat in the northern DPS's range in Costa Rica.

Our response: Additional acreage of forested habitat does not automatically equate to unique-value habitat, nor is it confirmatory of significance. We are not currently aware of any life-history functions that the Panama or Colombia portions are providing that are not provided elsewhere within the range, within the context of a “significant portion of its range” analysis. For example, there is no information that the very small population in Panama or the unknown but likely small population in Colombia are serving as a source population for the northern DPS. The northern DPS contains similar ecosystems across its range—lowland tropical habitats bounded by highlands, the Pacific Ocean, or both. Therefore, the best available information does not indicate that forests where scarlet macaws occur in Panama or Colombia are higher quality or provide unique-value habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range in the northern DPS.

Comment (10): Friends of Animals claimed that populations in Colombia and Panama are uniquely valuable because their large stretches of continuous forests could provide “potential habitat” for scarlet macaws if existing habitat is degraded. Per Friends of Animals, the same cannot be said for populations in Costa Rica because there is no additional “potential habitat” for scarlet macaws to move to within Costa Rica.

Our response: We have no data or information supporting the claim that scarlet macaws are occupying or moving into areas of “potential habitat” in Colombia and Panama that the commenter states would support scarlet macaws. Indeed, much of the habitat in the Colombia and Panama parts of the northern DPS's range is already degraded. Furthermore, the best scientific and commercial data available do not demonstrate that scarlet macaws affected by habitat degradation readily move to adjacent forested areas. The northern DPS includes populations of scarlet macaw in each country that are separated from each other with no known connectivity between them despite the existence of suitable habitat. Therefore, Friends of Animals' statement that scarlet macaws could move into “potential habitat” from degraded land is speculation, unsupported, and not based on the best scientific and commercial data available.

Comment (11): Friends of Animals provided two studies: a 2024 study examining commercial captive breeding of parrots and a 2023 study on genetic variation between subspecies of scarlet macaws.

Our response: We note that the 2024 study provided assesses whether commercial captive breeding of parrots may be an effective supply-side intervention but does not explicitly reference scarlet macaws. This study does not change our prior assessment, as noted below, that releases of captive scarlet macaws could augment wild populations, but they may also introduce diseases if not conducted properly.

As for the 2023 study on genetics, the study further examines the phylogenetic relationships and patterns of genetic variation of the two subspecies of scarlet macaw ( A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao ) as well as comparisons to the A. m. macao in Amazonian South America to the subspecies in Central America. This study does not change our prior determination that the scarlet macaw consists of two subspecies and that the A. m. macao ranges from Central America through the Amazon in South America.

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of 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. We consider these five factors and the species' responses to these factors when making these determinations.

Section 3 of the Act defines “endangered species” and “threatened species.” An endangered species is any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species is any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Both definitions include not only the phrase “throughout all,” but also the phrase “or a significant portion of its range.” Thus, there are ultimately four bases for listing a species under the Act (in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, or likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range). These four bases are made up of two classifications ( i.e., endangered or threatened) and two components ( i.e., throughout all of its range or throughout a significant portion of its range).

Beginning in 2001, several judicial opinions addressed our interpretation of the phrase “or a significant portion of its range” (the SPR phrase) in the statutory definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” In Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001), the court held that the interpretation of the SPR phrase that we had applied in analyzing the status of the flat-tailed horned lizard was unacceptable because it would allow for a species to warrant listing throughout a significant portion of a species' range only when the species “is in danger of extinction everywhere.” The court held that the SPR phrase must be given independent meaning from the “throughout all” phrase to avoid making the SPR phrase in the statute superfluous.

In an attempt to address the judicial opinions calling into question our approach to evaluating whether a species was endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, “the Services”) published a “ `Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species' ” (hereafter “2014 SPR policy”; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). The notice of the draft policy provides more detail about litigation before 2014 regarding the phrase (76 FR 76987, December 9, 2011). The 2014 SPR policy included four elements:

(1) Consequence—that the consequence of determining that a species warrants listing based on its status in a significant portion of its range is to list the species throughout all of its range;

(2) Significance—a definition of the term “significant;”

(3) Range—that the species' “range” is the current range of the species; and

(4) DPS—that, if a [vertebrate] species is endangered or threatened in an SPR and the population in that SPR is a distinct population segment (DPS), the Service will list just the DPS.

Subsequently, two district courts vacated the definition of “significant” contained in the 2014 SPR policy ( Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) (“ CBD v. Jewell” ) and Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (“ Desert Survivors” )). The courts found that the definition in the 2014 SPR policy set too high a threshold and rendered the SPR language in the statute superfluous, failing to give it independent meaning from the “throughout all” phrase. In 2020, another court ( Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (“ Everson” )) also vacated the specific aspect of the 2014 SPR policy under which, “if the Services determine that a species is threatened throughout all of its range, the Services will not analyze whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of its range.” This was an extension of the definition of “significant,” which required a stepwise process in which we only considered whether a species may be endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range when the species was not endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. In an extension of the earlier rulings from CBD v. Jewell and Desert Survivors, the court found that this aspect of the definition of the 2014 SPR policy was not only inconsistent with the statute because it “rendered the `endangered in a significant portion of its range' basis for listing superfluous,” but was also “inconsistent with ESA principles” and “not a logical outgrowth from the draft policy.” Under this ruling, if we find a species is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, we must evaluate whether the species is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, even in cases where we have determined that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout all of its range. The remaining three elements of the 2014 SPR policy remain intact.

In short, the courts have directed that the definition of “significant” must afford the phrase “or a significant portion of its range” an independent meaning from the “throughout all of its range” phrase. Therefore, to determine whether any species warrants listing, we determine for each classification (endangered and threatened) the appropriate component to evaluate (throughout all of its range or throughout a significant portion of its range).

For either classification (endangered or threatened), we consider the five factors and the species' responses to those factors regardless of which component (throughout all of its range or throughout a significant portion of its range) we have determined is appropriate for that classification. When assessing whether a species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, we address two questions because we must determine whether there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is “significant” and (2) the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout that portion. We may address either question first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.

The scarlet macaw inhabits various habitat types throughout its range, including tropical humid evergreen forest, deciduous and humid forest, intact and partially cleared lowland rainforest, mixed pine and broad-leaved woodlands, open areas and edges with scattered stands of tall trees, gallery forest, mangroves, and savannas, often near rivers (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 101; Forshaw 1989, p. 407; Meyer de Schauensee and Phelps, Jr. 1978, p. 99). Scarlet macaws prefer lowland, humid habitats that are dependent on the availability of fresh water (Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 744; Schmidt 2013, p. 175). The scarlet macaw generally occurs from sea level to about 500 meters (m) (1,640 feet (ft)) elevation, but it has been reported ranging up to 1,500 m (4,921 ft) in Central America ( i.e., Costa Rica) (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425; Vaughan 1983, in Vaughan et al. 2006, p. 919; Vaughan 2011, p. 22).

Generally, the species is geographically constrained between central highlands and either the Pacific or Atlantic Coasts. In the northern DPS, the range of the scarlet macaw occurs south of the Central Cordilleras of Costa Rica, along the Pacific slope, and south through Panama to northwest of the Andes Mountains in Colombia. Scarlet macaws are confined to the tropical forests in lower Central America by the central highlands and the Pacific Ocean. Similarly, in Colombia scarlet macaws inhabit moist tropical ecosystems along the mid- to lower-Magdalena River Valley, bounded by the Central and Oriental Cordilleras of the Northern Andes Mountains (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200). The geographical extent of these lowland habitats covers an area markedly smaller than either upper Central America or the Amazon Basin, with fewer major sources of fresh water (Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 745).

The scarlet macaw is considered somewhat tolerant of degraded or fragmented habitat (BLI 2011c, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Brightsmith in litt. 2016, pp. 4-7). They can survive in human-modified landscapes provided sufficient large trees remain for nesting and feeding requirements (BLI 2011c, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Ridgely 1981, p. 251). Landscapes may include a combination of agricultural land, pastureland, timber harvesting areas, and remnant forest patches (Vaughan et al. 2006, p. 920; Vaughan et al. 2005, p. 120; Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 7); partially cleared forest where large trees have been left standing (Forshaw 1989, p. 407); pastureland with scattered woodlots or remnant patches of rainforest (Vaughan et al. 2009, p. 396; Forshaw 1989, p. 407); and areas of human settlement (towns) (Guittar et al. 2009, p. 390). However, scarlet macaws occur at lower densities in disturbed or secondary forest habitat compared to primary, undisturbed forests (Cowen 2009, pp. 11-15; Karubian et al. 2005, pp. 622-623; Lloyd 2004, pp. 269, 272).

The total population of scarlet macaws in the northern DPS is approximately 1,275 to 2,475 birds (see table 1, below). Populations include: (1) two populations on the Pacific slope in Costa Rica—the ACOPAC and the ACOSA populations, (2) a very small population in the Chiriquí province and at the southern end of the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park in Panama, and (3) a population in northwest Colombia west of the Andes Mountains.

The Costa Rica populations account for most of the currently known population of the northern DPS of the scarlet macaw (see table 1). The ACOPAC population is estimated to contain approximately 450 birds (Arias et al. 2008, in McReynolds 2011, in litt. unpaginated). The estimates for the ACOSA population are between 800 to 1,200 birds (Dear et al. 2010, p. 17) but possibly up to 2,000 birds (Guzman 2008, p. 17). Combining plausible subpopulation estimates, the total population of scarlet macaws on the Pacific slope of Costa Rica that includes both the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations was estimated at approximately 1,800 birds (McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated).

In Panama, the scarlet macaw was formerly widespread on the Pacific slope in the western half of the country. The species is currently described as almost extinct on the mainland but abundant and occurring in substantial numbers on Isla Coiba, a one-time penal colony where human settlement and most hunting were prohibited (Ridgely 1981, p. 253). The current population of scarlet macaws in Panama is estimated at less than 200 birds, with most of the population occurring on Isla Coiba, which are a different subspecies (northern subspecies ( A. m. cyanoptera )) and not part of the northern DPS (Schmidt 2013, pp. 69-73; Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 740). Less than 25 birds are estimated to occur on mainland Panama (Keller and Schmitt 2008, in Brightsmith 2012, in litt. and McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated). This very small number of scarlet macaws on mainland Panama are the only scarlet macaws in Panama that are considered part of the northern DPS of the southern subspecies and included in this analysis. In the border region of Costa Rica and western Panama, scarlet macaws have been successfully reintroduced in Tiskita, Costa Rica (Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). The successful reintroduction has resulted in a viable population at Tiskita and scarlet macaws are established at this location (Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). Additionally, a small, but unknown number of scarlet macaws occur on the southern end of Panama in the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park, Tonosi Forest Reserve, and farther to the east (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 17; Sullivan et al. 2009, unpaginated; Rodriguez and Hinojosa 2010, in McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated).

In northwest Colombia, little information is available on the population size, density, or distribution of scarlet macaws. Scarlet macaws are believed to occur in the Magdalena and Cauca River valleys in tropical ecosystems bounded by the Central and Oriental Cordilleras of the Northern Andes Mountains (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; Forshaw 1989, p. 407). They have been reported as very rare or probably close to extinction in the Magdalena Valley, Cauca Valley, and to the north (Donegan 2013, in litt.; Ellery 2013, in litt.; McMullen 2010, p. 60). They may occur in very low numbers in the more remote and inaccessible parts of the region, but we lack further information on other potential populations.

The two primary threats to scarlet macaws are the loss of forest habitat and collection of wild birds for the pet trade (Iñigo-Elias in litt. 1996, in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; Guedes 2004, p. 280). The primary cause of forest loss is conversion to agriculture for crops and pasture, although other human activities such as construction of infrastructure, selective logging, fires, oil and gas extraction, and mining also contribute to the loss of forest cover within the range of the species (Blaser et al. 2011, pp. 262-402; Boucher et al. 2011, entire; Clark and Aide 2011, entire; Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2011a, pp. 17-18; May et al. 2011, pp. 7-13; Pacheco 2011, entire; Government of Costa Rica 2010, pp. 38-39; Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2010, pp. 40-45; Armenteras and Morales 2009, pp. 133-145, 176-191; Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; Mosandl et al. 2008, pp. 38-40; Nepstad et al. 2008, entire; Foley et al. 2007, pp. 26-27; Fearnside 2005, pp. 681-683).

Historically, large areas of forest have been removed throughout the species' range, particularly in Mexico and Central America, and any large tracts of forest that remain are fragmented and are mostly isolated from each other (Bray 2010, p. 93; see 84 FR 6278 at 6290-6296, February 26, 2019). Deforestation continues throughout much of the scarlet macaw's range, including in the northern DPS, and is a threat to the species because it eliminates the species' habitat by removing trees that support the species' essential needs for nesting, roosting, and food. Scarlet macaws require a large range and a variety of food resources. Thus, large-scale land conversion presents a generalized threat to scarlet macaw nest sites, foraging areas, and migration corridors (Schmidt 2013, p. 173). Scarlet macaws are dependent on larger, older trees that have large nesting cavities. Additionally, they primarily forage in the forest canopy, and are relatively general in their feeding habits. Abundance may fluctuate because they may move to areas with greater resource availability, influencing local and seasonal abundance (Lee 2010, p. 7; Cowen 2009, pp. 5, 23, citing several sources; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 132; Brightsmith 2006, unpaginated; Renton 2002, p. 17). Therefore, removal of older and larger trees decreases suitable nesting sites and food resources, increases competition, and causes the loss of current generations through an increase in infanticide and egg destruction (Lee 2010, pp. 2, 12). The species will use partially cleared and cultivated landscapes if they provide sufficient dietary requirements and maintain enough large trees. However, scarlet macaws have a better chance of surviving in large tracts of primary forest where suitable nesting cavities are more common than in open and small patches of non-primary forest (Iñigo-Elias 1996, p. 91). Therefore, as the size of the suitable habitat is reduced, it is less likely to provide the essential resources for the species (Ibarra-Macias 2009, p. 6; Lees and Peres 2006, pp. 203-205).

Competition for suitable nest cavities negatively affects reproductive success of scarlet macaws, including in the northern DPS. Competition limits available nesting sites and thus the number of pairs that can breed, or competition may cause nest mortality stemming from agonistic interactions. Intraspecific competition between different pairs of scarlet macaws, and competition with pairs of other macaw species that are larger and more competitive, is intense in some areas (Renton and Brightsmith 2009, p. 5; Iñigo-Elias 1996, p. 96; Nycander 1995, p. 428). Additionally, Africanized honeybees ( Apis mellifera scutellata) are also reported to be a competitor with scarlet macaws for nest cavities (Garcia et al. 2008, p. 52; Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 13; Iñigo-Elias 1996, p. 61).

Collecting wild birds for the pet trade has been occurring for centuries (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 9; Guedes 2004, p. 279; Snyder et al. 2000, pp. 98-99). Removing birds from the wild is driven by demand for the pet trade and is related to poverty because capture for sale in local markets can provide a significant source of supplemental income (Huson 2010, p. 58; González 2003, p. 438). Low salaries and high unemployment drive people to search for extra sources of income that may include collecting wildlife for the pet trade (TRAFFIC NA 2009, pp. 23-24).

Collection of scarlet macaws decreases the population, inhibits future breeding by removing reproductive age adults, may cause mortality of eggs or chicks, and may cause damage and loss of nesting sites (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 14; see 84 FR 6278 at 6296-6299, February 26, 2019). Scarlet macaws are long-lived species and once successfully fledged from the nest, they have a high survival rate (Myers and Vaughan 2004, cited in Vaughan et al. 2005, p. 128). However, with a low reproductive rate, low survival of chicks and fledglings, late age to first reproduction, and a large proportion of the population as nonbreeding adults, scarlet macaws are particularly vulnerable to overexploitation, especially when individuals are removed from the wild year after year (Munn 1992, p. 57; Wright et al. 2001, p. 712). Collection and deforestation often operate synergistically because activities that clear forests increase access to previously inaccessible areas, which in turn increases the vulnerability of species to overexploitation by humans (Peres 2001, entire; Putz et al. 2000, pp. 16, 23).

The scarlet macaw is a popular pet species within its range countries, and most birds collected for the pet trade are sold as pets and remain within range countries (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 102). Because of high mortality rates associated with capture and transport of wildlife, the number of birds sold or exported for the pet trade represents only a portion of those removed from the wild. Cumulative mortality rates before parrots reach customers have been estimated to be as high as 77 percent; for nestlings, approximately 80 percent died before reaching a pet store (Iñigo and Ramos 1991 and Enkerlin 2000, in Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 60). Pet collection is a threat for the scarlet macaw in the northern DPS.

On June 6, 1981, the scarlet macaw was included in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). On August 1, 1985, the scarlet macaw was included in Appendix I of CITES because of the high level of trade. Species included in Appendix I are considered threatened with extinction, and international trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade. The United States and Europe historically were the main markets for wild birds in international trade (FAO 2011b, p. 3). Trade was particularly high in the 1980s (Rosales et al. 2007, pp. 85, 94; Best et al. 1995, p. 234). However, in the years following the enactment of the Wild Bird Conservation Act in 1992 (WBCA; 16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq. ), there was a substantial reduction of wild-caught parrots imported to the United States from Mesoamerica and South America as well as the rest of the world (Pain et al. 2006, p. 327). The European Union, which was the largest market for wild birds following enactment of the WBCA, banned the import of wild birds in 2006 due to disease concerns (FAO 2011b, p. 21), thus eliminating another major market and further reducing international trade of wild parrots and macaws.

The scarlet macaw is protected by domestic laws within all range countries, and all have a system of protected areas or national parks to conserve biodiversity. However, enforcement of wildlife laws is generally lacking because the agencies responsible often do not have the financial resources, personnel, or both, to adequately enforce their laws, particularly in remote areas (TRAFFIC NA 2009, p. 20; Valdez et al. 2006, p. 276; Mauri 2002, entire).

The scarlet macaw currently occurs in relatively small and fragmented populations throughout most of its range. Small, isolated populations place the species at greater risk of local extirpation or extinction due to a variety of factors, including loss of genetic variability, demographic and environmental stochasticity, and natural catastrophes (Lande 1995, entire; Lehmkuhl and Ruggiero 1991, p. 37; Gilpin and Soulé 1986, pp. 25-33; Soulé and Simberloff 1986, pp. 28-32; Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Franklin 1980, entire). The species maintains genetic diversity throughout its range and between the two subspecies. With the ongoing loss of habitat throughout the range, the loss of genetic variability could diminish their capacity to adapt to changes in the environment (Blomqvist et al. 2010, entire; Reed and Frankham 2003, pp. 233-234; Nunney and Campbell 1993, pp. 236-237; Soulé and Simberloff 1986, pp. 28-29; Franklin 1980, pp. 140-144). Other natural events that put small populations at risk include variations in birth and death rates, fluctuations in gender ratio, and environmental disturbances such as wildfire and climatic shifts (Blomqvist et al. 2010, entire; Gilpin and Soulé 1986, p. 27; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Negative impacts associated with small population sizes of scarlet macaws may be magnified because of interactions with habitat loss and collection. Cumulatively, the small population sizes occurring in narrow lowland forested areas in fragmented habitat, combined with ongoing collection and a long-lived species' low reproduction rate, increases the species' vulnerability. As discussed below, some populations of the scarlet macaw in the northern DPS are relatively small and fragmented.

The scarlet macaw in the northern DPS occurs on the Pacific slope from northwestern Costa Rica, south through mainland Panama, and west of the Andes Mountains in Colombia. Deforestation, collection, lack of effective enforcement of existing laws, and small population size all cumulatively affect scarlet macaws in the northern DPS. In the 2023 SPR analysis based on the plain language of the Act and the Court's order in Everson, we assessed four portions within the northern DPS: the Pacific slope of Costa Rica, mainland Panama, Colombia west of the Andes, and Panama and Colombia combined. We concluded that there were no portions within the northern DPS where both the northern DPS is in danger of extinction and that portion of the range is significant.

The following is a final SPR analysis for the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw based on the best scientific and commercial data available, including new information received during the public comment period opened on December 26, 2024 (89 FR 104950).

As discussed above, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Following the court's holding in Everson, and having determined in our 2019 final rule that the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (northern DPS) is not in danger of extinction (endangered species) throughout all of its range, we evaluate whether the northern DPS is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range—that is, whether there is any portion of the northern DPS' range for which both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in that portion. In undertaking this analysis for the northern DPS, we choose to address the status question first. In examining the status question, we note that the statutory difference between an endangered species and a threatened species is the timeframe in which the species (subspecies or DPS) becomes in danger of extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction while a threatened species is not in danger of extinction but is likely to become so within the foreseeable future. In undertaking this analysis of whether the northern DPS is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, we reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding threats to the species, its responses to those threats, and any associated conservation measures. We then assessed the cumulative effects of those threats and conservation measures under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors. We examined the following threats: habitat loss and fragmentation, collection for the pet trade, small population size, and the effects to suitable habitat because of changing climatic factors, including synergistic and cumulative effects.

The range of many species can theoretically be divided in several ways. For the northern DPS, we considered population sizes, geographic distribution, and threats to the northern DPS, including the northern DPS's response to the threats and cumulative effects. We considered whether the effects of the threats on the northern DPS are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the northern DPS's range than in other portions such that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in that portion. We focused our analysis on portions of the northern DPS' range that may meet the definition of an endangered species. We identified four portions of the northern DPS' range for these analyses: (1) the Pacific slope of Costa Rica, (2) mainland Panama, (3) Colombia west of the Andes Mountains, and (4) Panama and Colombia combined.

The northern DPS includes populations of scarlet macaw in each country that are separated from each other with no known connectivity between them. Therefore, even if scarlet macaws can engage in larger scale movements within suitable habitat, the portions are based on the known population distributions of the northern DPS within each country and not strictly based on the geographic border of each country.

The northern DPS of scarlet macaw has been reduced from much of its historical range in Costa Rica due to the primary threats of habitat loss and collection (Bray 2010, p. 107; Marineros and Vaughan 1995, pp. 445-446; Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 8; McReynolds 2016, in litt., unpaginated). The northern DPS of scarlet macaw in Costa Rica occurs in lowlands along the Pacific slope flanked by the central highlands and the Pacific Ocean. The Costa Rica population in the northern DPS, including both the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations, is the largest population and accounts for most of the total population of scarlet macaws in the northern DPS.

Costa Rica is overall gaining forest cover throughout the country (Hansen et al. 2013, entire; FAO 2015, p. 10; Brightsmith 2016, in litt. p. 1). Nevertheless, some deforestation still occurs in parts of the country due to expansion of agriculture and livestock activities and to illegal logging in private forests, national parks, and reserves (Government of Costa Rica 2011, p. 2; Government of Costa Rica 2010, pp. 10-11, 38, 52-54; Parks in Peril 2008, unpaginated). The major driver of deforestation is the conversion of forest to livestock and agricultural uses because land users often generate a higher annual income with agriculture or livestock-raising than with forests. Indigenous communities have difficulties keeping nonindigenous farmers from encroaching onto their lands (Government of Costa Rica 2011, p. 1). Additionally, a lack of effective enforcement allows squatters and illegal loggers to exploit resources in protected areas.

A comprehensive study of deforestation in Costa Rica's parks system found that deforestation inside Level-1 protected areas, which denotes areas with absolute protections and where no land-cover change is allowed, was negligible from 1987 to 1997, and within the park's 1-kilomter (km) buffer zones the protected areas had a net forest gain for the same period. However, a 1 percent annual deforestation rate occurred in 10-km buffer zones of protected areas. Thus, as distance increases from Level-1 protected areas, total deforestation and deforestation rates also increase (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, p. 128). Corcovado National Park, the largest protected area in ACOSA, is one of the Level-1 protected areas in Costa Rica most affected by deforestation within 1 km of its boundaries (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, pp. 128-129). Within 10 km of the park, significant clearing also occurred (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, p. 132). Additionally, in the ACOPAC scarlet macaw population, deforestation occurs around the Carara National Park with a higher rate of deforestation northwest of Carara than to the south (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, pp. 128-129; Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 12). Generally, national parks on the Pacific slope experience less deforestation on surrounding lands than those on the Atlantic slope, which is attributed to the intensification and expansion of agricultural cash crops such as banana and pineapple (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al., 1999, 2001, cited in Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, p. 129).

Overall, the northern DPS's habitat and population size have been reduced from historical levels in Costa Rica. Even though some deforestation is ongoing, Costa Rica has experienced a positive change in forest cover over a 25-year period, from 1990 to 2015. Deforestation or forest degradation in the current range of the scarlet macaw is not occurring at a level that is causing any further decline of the northern DPS in Costa Rica.

Historically, northern DPS scarlet macaws in Costa Rica experienced heavy collection pressure, but there are ongoing efforts to reduce the magnitude of collection. Collection is important in many communities for both subsistence and monetary gain; the incentives to poach are great for low- income communities surrounding a park (Huson 2010, p. 66). Intense management efforts in the mid-1990s that included anti-poaching efforts increased recruitment into the population. However, the anti-poaching efforts and the associated increase in population size was not sustained over the long term (Vaughan et al. 2005, p. 127). A significant effort to control poaching in the Carara area is ongoing because poaching continues to be a serious problem (Vaughan 2005, pers. comm., in McReynolds 2016, in litt., unpaginated).

In 2005, the ACOPAC population of scarlet macaws was believed to be self-sustaining, even with heavy poaching pressure (Vaughan et al. 2005, p. 128). We have no information that suggests a change in this conclusion since 2005. In the ACOSA, approximately half (48 percent) of residents interviewed believed that scarlet macaws were still being poached, although 85 percent of the interviewees believed numbers of scarlet macaws were increasing and 43 percent of the interviewees mentioned less poaching occurs now than before (and none said poaching had increased (Dear et al. 2010, p. 13)). Overall, while collection is ongoing in the ACOSA and ACOPAC populations, the population of scarlet macaws is increasing despite the collection pressure.

Costa Rica's Wildlife Conservation Law and its amendments prohibit the hunting, collection, and extraction of all species, except in certain cases for subsistence by indigenous groups, scientific purposes, or species control (Costa Rica Embassy 2013, unpaginated; NOVA 2013, unpaginated; Tico Times 2017, unpaginated). Additionally, Costa Rica has protected its resources through an ambitious national parks and biological reserves system, but those parks and reserves are inadequately funded and insufficiently controlled (Government of Costa Rica 2010, p. 34). Poaching by local communities remains a concern; hunting within national park boundaries is illegal but difficult to enforce with limited funds and supervision (Huson 2010, p. 18; Government of Costa Rica 2010, p. 52). Officials in Carara National Park reported that they do not have enough staff to effectively control poaching (Huson 2010, p. 8).

Active reintroduction programs have added hundreds of scarlet macaws to the wild in the northern DPS in Costa Rica (Ara Project 2017, unpaginated; Brightsmith et al. 2005, p. 468; Dear et al. 2010, pp. 15-17; Forbes 2005, p. 97; Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). Most reintroduction projects also conduct environmental education at a local level and attract additional media attention to educate the public about the importance of scarlet macaws and their conservation (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 22).

Success of reintroductions varies. On the Nicoya Peninsula in northwestern Costa Rica, scarlet macaws are currently released at Punta Islita, Playa Tambor, and Curú National Wildlife Refuge, which are all within 50 km of each other. These three release sites, though isolated, could help repopulate the Nicoya Peninsula (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 15). Some released birds survived but have not produced chicks; we do not have information concerning the status of most released birds at these locations (Brightsmith et al. 2005, p. 468). Within the South Pacific coast region, over 75 scarlet macaws have been released into the wild with close to 90 percent survival rate (Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). This reintroduction program was ceased once a large enough population was established to potentially connect with populations in the ACOSA farther north along the coast (Ara Project 2018, unpaginated; Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated).

Releases of captive scarlet macaws could increase wild populations. Many captive-raised and confiscated birds are released adjacent to existing populations. Some released birds have found mates, food, and nesting resources in the wild. Conversely, releases of captive scarlet macaws could potentially pose a threat to wild populations by exposing wild birds to diseases for which wild populations have no resistance (Dear et al. 2010, p. 20; Schmidt 2013, pp. 74-75; also see IUCN 2013, pp. 15-17). However, these risks are small as the frequency of disease occurrence is low (see Factor C discussion in 77 FR 40222 at 40237-40238, July 6, 2012).

The population of scarlet macaws in the northern DPS is estimated to range between 1,475-2,475 birds (see table 1, above). Information indicates that the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations in Costa Rica, which make up the bulk of the northern DPS of scarlet macaw, are at least stable and likely increasing. The population appears to be expanding into suitable habitat along the Pacific slope between the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations. With regular sightings of scarlet macaws between the two populations, the scarlet macaw is now found from the Osa Peninsula (ACOSA population) to Carara National Park (ACOPAC population) (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 13). While poaching, deforestation, small population size, and inadequate enforcement of existing protections continue to affect the species, because the population is increasing and expanding in its range between the two populations, we determine that the Costa Rica portion of scarlet macaw is not in danger of extinction. As a result of our finding that the northern DPS is not in danger of extinction throughout this portion of the range, we do not need to determine whether this portion of the range is “significant.” Therefore, this portion of the species' range does not provide a basis for determining that the species is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range.

The best scientific and commercial data available on distribution and abundance indicates that there are very few scarlet macaws in the northern DPS on mainland Panama. The current population on mainland Panama is estimated to be fewer than 25 birds that occur in two areas, in northwest Panama in the upper Río Corotú near Puerto Armuelles and Querévalo in the Chiriquí province, and on the southern end of the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park, Tonosi Forest Reserve, and farther to the east. In the area of the upper Río Corotú near Puerto Armuelles and Querévalo in Chiriquí province, there have been sporadic sightings of scarlet macaws. However, it is uncertain if the birds in northwest Panama are a wild population or birds dispersing south from a reintroduction program at Tiskita, Costa Rica, that have successfully established in the area because of the program. Deforestation in Panama is relatively low for the Mesoamerica region; the annual decrease during 1990-2015 was 169 square kilometers (km 2 ) (or 0.4 percent) (FAO 2015, p. 12). Drivers of deforestation include urbanization, cattle ranching, agro-industrial development, unregulated shifting cultivation, open mining, poor logging practices, charcoal-making, and fire (International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) 2005, in Blaser et al. 2011, p. 354). Deforestation in the country currently occurs primarily in the Darieén, Colon, Ngabe Bugle, and Bocas del Toro provinces (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 354), which are outside the scarlet macaw's range in Panama. However, illegal logging is widespread in humid forests throughout Panama, even in protected areas (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 361). We are unaware of information indicating that deforestation and forest degradation are impacting scarlet macaws in northwest Panama. We are also unaware of information indicating that deforestation is occurring near the small but unknown number of scarlet macaws on the southern end of the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park and in the forest reserves just to the east. Less than 15 percent of the peninsula is covered by mature forest, but most of the remaining forest can be found in Cerro Hoya National Park and the Tronosa Forest Reserve to the east (Miller et al. 2015, p. 1).

Little information is available on collection of scarlet macaws in Panama, although it was historically a factor leading to the extremely low population size of the species in the country (McReynolds 2016, in litt. unpaginated). Cerro Hoya National Park is located on the southern tip of the Azuero Peninsula within Panama's most impoverished province (Veraguas) and the Los Santos province. Collection of wildlife (including scarlet macaws) is a threat in this area because locals use unoccupied lands for logging and to collect wildlife for sustenance and income. Poaching of wildlife is common in rural areas (Government of Panama 2005, p. 36; Parker et al. 2004, p. II-6). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that some level of poaching of scarlet macaws likely occurs in the country, although at what level is unknown. Because the species is vulnerable to overexploitation based on their life-history traits, poaching individuals from such a small population would impact the population's viability. Moreover, despite a program to use captive scarlet macaw feathers to reduce hunting of wild birds for their feathers, hunting still occurs, and collection of chicks for pets remains a concern at Cerro Hoya National Park (Rodriquez and Hinojosa 2010, in McReynolds 2016, in litt., unpaginated).

The National Environment Authority is the primary government institution for forest and biodiversity conservation and management in Panama. To protect and regulate the use of wildlife, flora and fauna, the Panamanian Government has created numerous laws, including Wildlife Law 24 that establishes wildlife as part of the natural heritage of Panama and provides for protection, restoration, research, management, and development of the country's genetic resources, including rare species; the General Law on the Environment (41), which establishes the basic principles and norms for the protection, conservation, and restoration of the environment and promotes the sustainable use of natural resources; and the National System of Protected Areas (Parker et al. 2004, p. III-2; Blaser et al. 2011, p. 355). However, the National Environment Authority has limited capacity and resources to ensure adherence to forest-related laws and regulations (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 361).

Overall, the scarlet macaw exists on mainland Panama in two areas with an extremely small overall population size (less than 25 birds). Deforestation is a threat to forests in Panama, but primarily occurs outside of the scarlet macaw's range. Illegal and small-scale subsistence logging is ongoing with little oversight and causes forest degradation. However, we are unaware of deforestation affecting the northern DPS on mainland Panama. Poaching was not identified as a main threat to biodiversity in Cerro Hoya National Park (Parker et al. 2004, Annex G, unpaginated), but poaching is common in rural areas and collection of scarlet macaws within the park and in rural areas is likely ongoing. The scarlet macaw's life history traits limit the species' ability to recover, particularly if individuals are removed from the wild year after year. Given the extremely small population of macaws in Panama, the loss of even a few individuals in the wild represents an ongoing threat to the species' viability in Panama. Therefore, we conclude that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in the Panama portion.

Because we concluded that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in the Panama portion, we next proceed to evaluating whether this portion of the range is significant. As discussed above, two district courts vacated the definition of “significant” contained in the 2014 SPR policy. Therefore, for the purposes of this revised analysis, when considering whether this portion is “significant,” we considered factors such as whether the portion may (1) occur in a unique habitat or ecoregion for the species relative to the rest of the habitat in the range, (2) contain high quality or high value habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range or (3) contains a large geographic portion of the suitable habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range for the species.

To determine whether a portion of the range may represent a large percentage of the range, we first map the current range. We received additional information during the public comment period that we used to revise the northern DPS range. The submitted “range analysis” (provided as an attachment) used multiple sources to map forested areas below 500 m and below 1,500 m within Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia, including: (1) the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) range, (2) IUCN range with convex hulls of eBird point observations (hereafter “eBird observations”), and (3) potential range polygons (hereafter “potential range”) that include all lowland forests adjacent or accessible to the northern DPS population. The submitted “range analysis” removed areas with less than or equal to 75 percent tree cover that had not experienced forest loss since 2000, retained areas with tree height greater than or equal to 10 meters, and excluded areas in oil palm cultivation as of 2019. The “range analysis” includes quantification of forest area and non-forest area up to 500 m and up to 1,500 m.

After considering and evaluating the three recommendations provided, we have determined that the IUCN range represents the best scientific and commercial data available for the northern DPS.

The IUCN estimates the range of scarlet macaw on mainland Panama is approximately 1,583 km 2 . This estimate represents the taxon's current and historical distribution based on expert assessment of the available data (IUCN 2018, p. 4). The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the species occurs on the southern end of the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park, Tonosi Forest Reserve, and farther to the east. This area is similar to the range of eBird observations. We assume the eBird observations are accurate and are true reflections of species' observations, as eBird is managed by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and documents bird distribution, abundance, habitat use, and trends through checklist data collected within a simple, scientific framework (Sullivan et al. 2009, unpaginated). However, the “range analysis” including eBird observations is based on a convex hull and more than doubles the size of the IUCN range. Convex hulls have known biases in overestimating range (Burgman and Fox 2003, p. 22), and the “range analysis” does not include the raw data of the eBird observations, limiting our ability to assess the impact of this bias on the range estimate. The “potential range” presented in the “range analysis” includes all lowland forests adjacent or accessible to the northern DPS population, including areas where there is a lack of data on the presence of scarlet macaws in the northern DPS. However, the presence of forested land does not necessarily equate to suitable habitat for the scarlet macaw. Given the northern DPS includes populations of scarlet macaw in each country that are clearly separated from each other with no known connectivity, the potential range likely overestimates the range by assuming forested areas adjacent to known populations of the northern DPS serve as habitat for the species, despite the lack of data to support presence within those areas. Thus, we conclude the IUCN range represents the best data available on the scarlet macaw's range in Panama.

The northern DPS contains similar ecosystems across its range—lowland tropical habitats bounded by highlands or the Pacific Ocean. Scarlet macaws are dependent on larger, older trees that have large nesting cavities, forage primarily in the forest canopy, and are relatively general in their feeding habits. The best scientific and commercial data available do not indicate that forests where scarlet macaws occur in mainland Panama are of higher quality or provide high value relative to the remaining portions of the range in the northern DPS. The Panama portion of the range accounts for a very small (only 2 percent) proportion of the current estimated range of the northern DPS. Finally, the total population of scarlet macaws on mainland Panama (approximately 25 birds) represents only about 1 percent of the total population of the northern DPS and best scientific and commercial data available do not indicate that the Panama portion has ever contained a large percentage of the rangewide population.

In summary, the Panama portion does not provide any unique habitat or ecoregion for the species relative to the rest of the habitat in the range. This portion does not contain high-quality or high-value habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range, nor does this portion contain a large geographic portion of the suitable habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range for the species. In addition, there were no other factors that would suggest that the portion is a significant portion of the northern DPS's range. Therefore, while the northern DPS of scarlet macaw is in danger of extinction within the Panama portion, that portion is not a significant portion of the northern DPS' range.

Scarlet macaws historically occurred in northwest Colombia in the tropical zone of the Caribbean region, and the inter-Andean valleys, the largest of which are the Magdalena and Cauca River valleys (Salaman et al. 2009, p. 21; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; Forshaw 1989, p. 407). The species was reported to inhabit moist tropical ecosystems along the mid- to lower-Magdalena River Valley, bounded by the Central and Oriental Cordilleras of the Northern Andes Mountains (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200). However, northern DPS scarlet macaws have been reported as probably close to extinction in the Magdalena and Cauca River valleys, and areas north (Donegan 2013, in litt.; Ellery 2013, in litt.; McMullen 2010, p. 60). Scarlet macaws may occur in very low numbers in the more remote and inaccessible parts of the region, but their status there is not clear. We are unaware of any other detailed information on the numbers, distribution, or status of the scarlet macaw in northwest Colombia.

The primary factors affecting the northern DPS of scarlet macaws in northwest Colombia are habitat loss, and to a lesser extent collection (Donegan 2013, in litt., unpaginated). Colombia has lost forest at an increasing rate (FAO 2020, p. 137; Ortega and Lagos 2011, p. 82; Salaman et al. 2009, p. 21; Colombia Gold Letter 2012, pp. 1-2; Restrepo et al. 2015, pp. 18-26; Restrepo and Escobar 2018, pp. 85-87) due primarily to conversion of land to pasture and agriculture, mining, illicit crops, logging, and palm oil agribusiness (Ortega and Lagos 2011, pp. 85-86; Salgado et al. 2022, p. 453). Agriculture is the major driver of forest loss. However, the drivers of deforestation do not operate at the same magnitude in all regions of Colombia (Arias Gaviria et al. 2021, p. 90).

The percentage of forest cover in the Magdalena basin is estimated to have declined by more than 40 percent, from 66 percent cover in 1980 to 22 percent in 2000, with an annual deforestation rate of 274,000 hectares per year (Restrepo et al. 2015, p. 15). In the central and lower basins of the Magdalena River, 30 percent of lowland forests were cut down by the year 2000 (Salgado et al. 2022, p. 458). The Magdalena and Caribbean regions had approximately only 7 percent and 23 percent (respectively) of their land area in original vegetation, with the remainder converted primarily to grazing land (79 percent and 68 percent, respectively) (Etter et al. 2006, p. 376). Within the Caribbean region, protected areas and sanctuaries have lost up to 70 percent of forest cover since they were created in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Miller et al. 2004, p. 454). This loss of forest in the Magdalena basin demonstrates that deforestation is ongoing in northwest Colombia with few large tracts of forest remaining.

The threat of habitat loss is higher in Colombia compared to the other parts of the range within the northern DPS. With limited information on population size or trends, we assume collection for the pet trade occurs throughout the range of the northern DPS and is not geographically concentrated in Colombia or occurring at a different scale from any other portion in the northern DPS. The best scientific and commercial data available suggest that the scarlet macaw's population in northwest Colombia is small and has been significantly reduced from its historical range. Viability of the presumed small population is likely low, exacerbated by ongoing threats of habitat loss and collection in light of the species' life-history traits that limit the rate of recovery from loss of wild populations. Therefore, we conclude that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in the Colombia portion.

Because we concluded that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in the Colombia portion, we next proceed to evaluating whether this portion of the range is significant. Similar to the Panama portion, for the purposes of this analysis, when considering whether this portion is “significant” we considered factors such as whether the portion may (1) occur in a unique habitat or ecoregion for the species relative to the rest of the habitat in the range, (2) contain high quality or high value habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range, or (3) contains a large geographic portion of the suitable habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range for the species.

For similar reasons articulated for the delineation of the Panama range, we determined the IUCN range is based on the best scientific and commercial data available and represents the most accurate and reliable assessment of the scarlet macaw's range in Colombia. This species occurs in the mid- to lower-Magdalena River Valley and Cauca River Valley in tropical ecosystems bounded by the Central and Oriental Cordilleras of the Northern Andes Mountains (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; Forshaw 1989, p. 407). The IUCN estimates the range of the scarlet macaw in Colombia is approximately 133,450 km 2 . This estimate represents an accurate depiction of the scarlet macaw's current and historical distribution in Colombia based on expert assessment of the available data (IUCN 2018, p. 4).

The scarlet macaw is known to occur up to 1,500 m in Costa Rica but at lower elevations in the remainder of its range, including up to 500 m in Colombia (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425). Therefore, we consider the range of scarlet macaw in Colombia to be limited to areas up to 500 m in elevation.

Strictly considering the IUCN range that was delineated in the “range analysis” as “forest area up to 500m,” Colombia would account for approximately 75 percent of the total IUCN range of the northern DPS of scarlet macaw. However, simply containing a large percentage of the range does not automatically make a portion of the range “significant,” nor does it account for the differences across the range.

The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the range of scarlet macaws in Colombia is consistent with the IUCN range; however, that range includes significant areas of non-forest habitat. The proportion of the IUCN range that is forest habitat in the Colombia portion, per data provided in the “range analysis,” is 13.4 percent, which is significantly lower than the proportion of forest habitat in either Panama (33.1 percent) or Costa Rica (35.2 percent). Further, within the IUCN range in Colombia, only 33 percent of the range is forested and approximately 50 percent of the range is considered rangeland according to Sentinel-2 10-meter land use data (Esri Land Cover 2024). Based on the low proportion of habitat that is forested within the IUCN range as compared with the amount of forested habitat in other portions of the range, Colombia does not provide significant habitat in terms of quantity and quality. Limited scientific and commercial data are available regarding population size in Colombia. However, the scarlet macaw's population in northwest Colombia is likely small. We acknowledge recent population declines in this area as well as ongoing deforestation; however, there are no data available that indicate that the Colombia portion of the northern DPS historically supported a higher density of birds. Therefore, the best scientific and commercial data available suggest the Colombia population likely represents a minimal proportion of the total population of the northern DPS, and the best available information does not indicate that the Columbia portion has ever contained a large percentage of the rangewide population.

Additionally, the Colombia portion does not provide any unique habitat or ecoregion for the species relative to the rest of the habitat in the range or contain high quality or high value habitat relative to the rest of the range. The northern DPS contains similar ecosystems across its range—lowland tropical habitats bounded by highlands and/or the Pacific Ocean. Scarlet macaws are dependent on larger, older trees that have large nesting cavities, forage primarily in the forest canopy, and are relatively general in their feeding habits. The best available information does not indicate that forests where scarlet macaws occur in northwest Colombia are higher quality or provide high value relative to the remaining portions of the range in the northern DPS. No other factors suggest that the portion is a significant portion of the northern DPS' range. In summary, while we have determined that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction within the Columbia portion, the portion is not a significant portion of the range of the northern DPS.

Having determined that neither the Panama nor the Colombia portions are significant portions of the northern DPS's range, we considered whether the Panama and Columbia portions combined might be a significant portion of the range of the northern DPS' range where the species is endangered. The scarlet macaw in the northern DPS may be in danger of extinction in that combined portion because of ongoing threats of deforestation that removes the species' habitat for nesting and foraging, as well as collection for the pet trade. Viability of very small populations in Panama and Colombia is likely minimal, particularly because the species' life-history traits limit the rate of recovery from loss of wild populations. Therefore, we conclude that the scarlet macaw in the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in this portion.

Because we concluded that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in this portion, we next proceed to evaluating whether this portion of the range is significant. As discussed above, for the purposes of this analysis, when considering whether this portion is “significant” we considered factors such as whether the portion may (1) occur in a unique habitat or ecoregion for the species relative to the rest of the habitat in the range, (2) contain high quality or high value habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range, or (3) contains a large geographic portion of the suitable habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range for the species.

Considering forested area up to 500 m within the IUCN range that was delineated in the “range analysis,” Colombia and Panama contain a large portion of the range, accounting for approximately 77 percent of the total IUCN range of the northern DPS of scarlet macaw. However, simply containing a large percentage of the range does not automatically make a portion of the range “significant.” Additionally, this portion does not provide any unique habitat or ecoregion for the species relative to the rest of the habitat in the range, contain high quality or high value habitat relative to the rest of the range, and no other factors suggest that the portion is a significant portion of the northern DPS' range.

The best scientific and commercial data suggest the population in the Panama and Colombia portion is small and likely represents a minimal proportion of the total population of the northern DPS and has always been a smaller percentage of the rangewide population compared to Costa Rica. In summary, while the northern DPS is in danger of extinction within the Colombia and Panama portion, this portion is not a significant portion of the northern DPS' range.

The analyses of the Panama portion, Colombia portion, and the portion that combines Panama and Colombia together, does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the 2014 policy, including the definition of “significant,” that those court decisions held to be invalid.

In compliance with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's July 2024 opinion, we have reconducted our analysis of the “significant portion of the range” after soliciting and considering public comments on the relevant, substantive issues.

In this analysis of the northern DPS, we assessed four portions within the DPS: the Pacific slope of Costa Rica, mainland Panama, and Colombia west of the Andes, and Panama and Colombia combined. We concluded that none of the portions in the northern DPS are portions where the northern DPS of scarlet macaw is both in danger of extinction and the portion is “significant.” The northern DPS is not in danger of extinction throughout the Costa Rica portion; therefore, we did not need to address whether the portion is “significant.” The northern DPS may be in danger of extinction throughout either the Panama or Colombia portions; however, neither of these portions of the range are “significant.” Similarly, we concluded the northern DPS may be in danger of extinction throughout the combined Panama and Colombia portion; however, this portion of the range is also not “significant.” Having completed the “significant portion of its range” analysis for the northern DPS and determined that the northern DPS is not in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, we are not revising the current status of the northern DPS. Therefore, we affirm the listing of the scarlet macaw as set forth in the 2019 final rule.

This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

Paul Souza, Regional Director, Region 8, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this action on May 21, 2025, for publication. On May 27, 2025, Paul Souza authorized the undersigned to sign the document electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Atlantic BFT fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP) and its amendments, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) and consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ). ATCA is the implementing statute for binding recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The HMS FMP and its amendments are implemented by regulations are at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27(a) divides the U.S. BFT quota, established by ICCAT and as implemented by the United States among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the HMS FMP and its amendments. NMFS is required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1)(D) to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest quotas under relevant international fishery agreements such as the ICCAT Convention, which is implemented domestically pursuant to ATCA.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14172 (Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness). As part of the order, the Gulf of Mexico is renamed as the Gulf of America. Consistent with the order, this action uses Gulf of America for all references to the area known as the Gulf of Mexico in the specific regulations at 50 CFR part 635.

As described in § 635.27(a), the current baseline U.S. BFT quota is 1,316.14 metric tons (mt) (not including the 25-mt ICCAT allocated to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area). The Angling category baseline quota is 297.4 mt. This baseline quota is further subdivided into subquotas by size class (see table 1) as follows: 134.1 mt for school BFT, 154.1 mt for large school/small medium BFT, and 9.2 mt for large medium/giant BFT. Large school and small medium BFT traditionally have been managed as one size class, i.e., a limit of one large school/small medium BFT (measuring 47 to less than 73 inches (119 to less than 150 cm)). Similarly, large medium and giant BFT traditionally have been managed as one size class that is also known as the “trophy” class. Currently, the default Angling category daily retention limit of one school, large school, or small medium BFT is in effect and applies to HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels (when fishing recreationally for BFT) (§ 635.23(b)(2)).

Under § 635.23(b)(3), NMFS may increase or decrease the Angling category daily retention limit for any size class of BFT after considering the regulatory determination criteria under § 635.27(a)(7). Also under § 635.23(b)(3), recreational retention limits may be adjusted separately for specific vessel type, such as private vessels, charter boats, or headboats.

NMFS has considered all of the relevant determination criteria and their applicability to the change in the Angling category retention limit. After considering these criteria, NMFS has decided to adjust the Angling category retention limit as follows:

(1) For private vessels with HMS Angling permits, this action adjusts the limit to one school BFT and zero large school/small medium BFT per vessel per day/trip ( i.e., one BFT measuring 27 to less than 47 inches (68.5 to less than 119 cm) and zero BFT measuring 47 to less than 73 inches (119 to less than 185 cm)).

(2) For charter boat vessels with HMS Charter/Headboat permits, this action adjusts the limit to two school BFT and zero large school/small medium BFT per vessel per day/trip when fishing recreationally for BFT ( i.e., two BFT measuring 27 to less than 47 inches (68.5 to less than 119 cm) and zero BFT measuring 47 to less than 73 inches (119 to less than 185 cm)).

(3) For headboat vessels with HMS Charter/Headboat permits, this action adjusts the limit to two school BFT and zero large school/small medium BFT per vessel per day/trip when fishing recreationally for BFT ( i.e., two BFT measuring 27 to less than 47 inches (68.5 to less than 119 cm) and zero BFT measuring 47 to less than 73 inches (119 to less than 185 cm)).

Regardless of the duration of a fishing trip, no more than a single day's retention limit may be possessed or retained at the end of the trip upon landing. For example, whether a private vessel (fishing under the Angling category retention limit) takes a two-day trip or makes two trips in one day, the day/trip retention limit of one school BFT and zero large school/small medium BFT applies and may not be exceeded upon landing.

As described above, under § 635.23(b)(3), NMFS may increase or decrease the retention limit for any size class of BFT, or change a vessel trip limit to an angler trip limit and vice versa after considering the regulatory determination criteria under § 635.27(a)(7). These considerations include, but are not limited to, the following:

Regarding the usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock (§ 635.27(a)(7)(i)), biological samples collected from BFT landed by recreational fishermen continue to provide NMFS with valuable parts and data for ongoing scientific studies of BFT age and growth, migration, and reproductive status. Additional opportunity to land BFT in the Angling category would support the continued collection of a broad range of data for these studies and for stock monitoring purposes.

NMFS also considered the catches of the Angling category quota to date and the likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no adjustment is made (§ 635.27(a)(7)(ii)). In addition to Angling category landings to date in 2025, NMFS considered Angling category landings in 2024, which totaled 452.7 mt, exceeding the 297.4 mt annual Angling category quota by 52 percent. School and large school/small medium BFT landings totaled 152.6 mt and 281.6 mt, exceeding the school and large school/small medium BFT subquotas by 14 percent and 83 percent, respectively. NMFS notes that the daily retention limits for private, charter boat, and headboat vessels in 2024 were higher than the daily retention limits established in this action. Given fishery performance in recent years and the high availability of BFT on fishing grounds, it is very likely that under the default daily retention limits, which allows fishermen to land heavier-weight large school/small medium BFT the recreational fishery could reach the available 2025 Angling category quota and subquotas relatively early in the season resulting in a premature closure of the recreational BFT fisheries. As such, NMFS believes adjusting the daily retention limits to the levels established in this action, which limits landings to lower-weight school sized BFT, would assist in extending the time it takes to harvest the Angling category quota and subquotas. Should recreational landings be higher or lower than expected, NMFS could take another action later in the year to further adjust the daily retention limit or close all or part of the fishery.

NMFS also considered the effects of the adjustment on the BFT stock and the effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the HMS FMP (§ 635.27(a)(7)(v) and (vi)). Adjusting the retention limits would be consistent with established quotas and subquotas, which are implemented consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 22-10, ATCA, and the objectives of the HMS FMP and amendments. In establishing these quotas and subquotas and associated management measures, ICCAT and NMFS considered the best scientific information available, objectives for stock management and status, and effects on the stock. Making these adjustments is in line with the established management measures and stock status determinations. It is also important that NMFS limit landings to the subquotas both to adhere to the subquota allocations and to ensure that landings are as consistent as possible with the pattern of fishing mortality ( e.g., fish caught at each age) that was assumed in the latest stock assessment. These retention limit adjustments are consistent with those objectives.

Another principal consideration in setting the retention limit is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the available Angling category quota without exceeding the annual quota. This consideration is based on the objectives of the HMS FMP and its amendments, and includes achieving optimum yield on a continuing basis and optimizing the ability of all permit categories to harvest available BFT quota allocations (related to § 635.27(a)(7)(x)).

In implementing this retention limit adjustment, NMFS considered that ICCAT recommendations and HMS implementing regulations limit the allowance for landings of school BFT to 10 percent of the U.S. baseline quota ( i.e., 134.1 mt, see § 635.27(a)(2)), as well as input on recreational limits from the HMS Advisory Panel in 2024 and most recently at its May 2025 meeting. The 2024 school BFT landings represented approximately 11.4 percent of the U.S. baseline annual quota for 2024, slightly exceeding the ICCAT established 10-percent limit. In contrast to previous years, NMFS is currently not setting higher school BFT retention limits than those established in this action due to the potential risk of exceeding the ICCAT tolerance limit on school BFT, as well as for other considerations such as potential effort shifts to BFT fishing as a result of current recreational retention limits for New England groundfish and striped bass and high variability in BFT availability (related to § 635.27(a)(7)(vii).

Furthermore, as mentioned above, the large school/small medium quota for 2024 was exceeded. NMFS examined the results of the 2024 fishing year under the applicable daily retention limits, as well as the observed trend in the recreational fishery toward heavier fish, particularly in the large school and small medium size classes. NMFS believes it reasonable to assume that the large school/small medium subquota would be exceeded quickly under the default daily retention limit, particularly due to the high availability of large school/small medium BFT (related to § 635.27(a)(7)(ix). Thus, NMFS believes prohibiting the retention of large school/small medium BFT is appropriate at this time. If needed, NMFS could take another action later in the year to increase the large school/small medium BFT retention limits. NMFS notes that HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels (when fishing recreationally for BFT) may continue to catch and release (or tag and release) large school/small medium BFT.

Lastly, NMFS has also concluded that implementation of separate limits for private and charter/headboat vessels is appropriate, recognizing the different nature, social and economic needs, and recent landings results of these components of the recreational BFT fishery. For example, charter operators historically have indicated that a retention limit greater than the default limit of one fish is vital to their ability to attract customers. In addition, Large Pelagics Survey estimates indicate that charter/headboat BFT landings averaged 26 percent of recent Angling category landings for 2024, with the remaining 74 percent landed by private vessels. In past years, NMFS has acknowledged that a higher limit for headboats (than charter boats) was appropriate, given the limited number of headboats participating in the BFT fishery. However, given that the Angling category quota and subquotas in 2024 were exceeded and there is potential risk to exceeding the 2025 Angling category quota and subquotas, NMFS believes setting the same charter and headboat daily retention limit is appropriate at this time.

Given these considerations, NMFS has determined that the Angling category daily retention limits applicable to HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels should be adjusted from the default levels. The retention limits established through this action are intended to provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest the available Angling category quota and subquotas, without exceeding them, while maintaining equitable fishing opportunities. NMFS acknowledges that the BFT daily retention limits in this action may result in landings during 2025 that could reach or exceed the annual Angling category quota and subquotas. However, lower retention limits could result in substantial social and economic impacts for the recreational BFT fishery. Furthermore, if effort is lower than previous years or if catch rates are not as high as anticipated, maintaining the default retention limit could result in an underharvest of the Angling category quota and subquotas. As described earlier, if needed and appropriate, NMFS could take another action(s) later in the year to increase or decrease the retention limits or close the fishery. Although NMFS has not closed the recreational fishery prior to the end of the fishing year in recent years ( i.e., the fishery has remained open through December), the possibility of NMFS needing to close the fishery earlier in the fishing year ( e.g., in the summer or fall) is more likely this year.

NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or the end of each trip, by accessing https://hmspermits.noaa.gov or by using the HMS Catch Reporting app, or calling (888) 872-8862 (Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time).

Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional retention limit adjustments or closures are necessary to ensure available quota is not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register . In addition, fishermen may access https://hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders may catch and release (or tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. All BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize their survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/outreach-and-education/careful-catch-and-release-brochure.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)) and regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and this action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 533(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the following reasons. Specifically, the regulations implementing the HMS FMP and its amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Providing for prior notice and opportunity to comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Based on available quotas, fishery performance in recent years, and the availability of BFT on the fishing grounds, responsive adjustment of the daily retention limit is warranted to extend fishing opportunities later into the season. NMFS could not have proposed this action earlier, as it needed to consider and respond to complete 2024 recreational landings data. If NMFS was to offer a public comment period or delay in effective date now, after having appropriately considered that information, it would preclude the fishery from harvesting BFT that are legally available consistent with all of the regulatory criteria, and/or could result in selection of a retention limit inappropriately high or low for the amount of quota available for the period. Fisheries under the default Angling category daily retention limit are currently underway and thus prior notice would be contrary to the public interest. Delays in this action would adversely affect those HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels that would otherwise have an opportunity to harvest more than the default retention limit of one school BFT per day/trip. Analysis of available data shows that adjustment to the BFT daily retention limit from the default level would result in minimal risk of exceeding the ICCAT-allocated quota. NMFS provides notification of retention limit adjustments by publishing the notice in the Federal Register , emailing individuals who have subscribed to the Atlantic HMS News electronic newsletter, and updating the information posted on the Atlantic Tunas Information Line and on https://hmspermits.noaa.gov. Taking this action does not raise conservation and management concerns, and would support effective management of the BFT fishery. NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the U.S. BFT quota and the inseason adjustment criteria.

For all of the above reasons, the AA also finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

On May 2, 2025, NMFS published a temporary rule (90 FR 18804) implementing emergency measures to revise portions of the fishing year 2025 provisions in the Northeast Multispecies FMP to put in place necessary specifications and other measures at the beginning of fishing year 2025. The temporary rule is intended to mitigate economic harm to the Northeast multispecies fishery participants by establishing fish stock quotas and related measures that allow the fishery to operate while preventing overfishing. Comments on the temporary rule must be received by June 2, 2025. The temporary rule establishes annual catch limits and total allowable catches, and approves Northeast multispecies sector operations plans and sector allocations that allow the fishery to operate during the 2025 fishing year that began on May 1, 2025. The temporary rule contained two errors in the preamble: The value for the fishing year 2025 U.S. acceptable biological catch (ABC) for Georges Bank haddock that was projected in Framework Adjustment 66 (89 FR 35755, May 2, 2024); and the possession limit for Gulf of Maine cod in table 13.

The temporary rule incorrectly listed the fishing year 2024 U.S. ABC amount of 7,058 mt as the projected Georges Bank haddock U.S. ABC for fishing year 2025 published in Framework Adjustment 66. The correct projected Georges Bank haddock U.S. ABC for fishing year 2025 in Framework Adjustment 66 was 5,382 mt. The new 2025 U.S. ABC recommended by the New England Fishery Management Council in Framework Adjustment 69 (1,556 mt) is 71 percent lower than the U.S. ABC previously projected for 2025 (1,556 mt vs. 5,382 mt). The U.S. ABC for 2025 projected in Framework Adjustment 66 (5,382 mt) is 33 percent less than the overfishing limit (8,034 mt) identified in the 2024 assessment. The Canadian share of the 2025 total ABC is 5,854 mt, based on the U.S./Canada process described in the temporary rule. Therefore, in combination with projected Canadian catch, maintaining the U.S. ABC projected by Framework Adjustment 66 for fishing year 2025 could allow overfishing and the temporary rule correctly set a lower U.S. ABC for fishing year 2025.

Table 13 in the temporary rule incorrectly listed the daily and trip possession limit of Gulf of Maine cod as 0 lb (0 kg) and stated that possession of Gulf of Maine cod is prohibited for commercial vessels fishing in the common pool in FISHING YEAR 2025. This was a typographical error. The preamble explained, and table 13 correctly indicated, that possession of Georges Bank cod is prohibited. Possession of Gulf of Maine cod is allowed under the temporary rule. Limited access day-at-sea (DAS) vessels may possess up to 25 lb (11 kg) per DAS, and up to 50 lb (23 kg) per trip. All other commercial vessels fishing in the common pool may possess up to 25 lb (11 kg) per trip.

This document changes the value of the fishing year 2025 U.S. ABC for Georges Bank haddock to the amount that was projected in Framework Adjustment 66 and adjusts the Gulf of Maine cod possession limit in table 13 to the correct amounts.

In FR Rule Doc. 2025-07635, appearing on page 18804 in the Federal Register of Friday, May 2, 2025, the following corrections to the preamble are made:

1. On page 18807, in the second column, the current second paragraph under table 1 states, “However, a new stock assessment completed in 2024 resulted in the Council recommending a new 2025 U.S. ABC in Framework Adjustment 69 that is 78 percent lower than the U.S. ABC previously projected for 2025 (1,556 mt vs. 7,058 mt). The U.S. ABC for 2025 projected in Framework Adjustment 66 (7,058 mt) is only 12 percent less than the overfishing limit (8,034 mt) identified in the 2024 assessment.” This is corrected to read “However, a new stock assessment completed in 2024 resulted in the Council recommending a new 2025 U.S. ABC in Framework Adjustment 69 that is 71 percent lower than the U.S. ABC previously projected for 2025 (1,556 mt vs. 5,382 mt). The U.S. ABC for 2025 projected in Framework Adjustment 66 (5,382 mt) is 33 percent less than the overfishing limit (8,034 mt) identified in the 2024 assessment.”

2. On page 18815, in table 13, the entry “GOM cod” is corrected to read as follows:

Amendment 23 revises section 4.5 of the CPS FMP, the rebuilding plan for Pacific sardine, in response to an order from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ( Oceana, Inc., v. Raimondo, et al., No. 5:21-cv-05407-VKD (N.D. Cal., filed July 14, 2021)). There are no implementing regulations associated with Amendment 23.

NMFS published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for Amendment 23 on March 12, 2025 (90 FR 11817), and solicited public comments through May 12, 2025. NMFS summarizes and responds to the public comments below in the Comments and Responses section. We considered all public comments received on the NOA and EA. Now, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, we are announcing the approval of Amendment 23. As discussed in greater detail in the NOA, Amendment 23 revises the Pacific sardine rebuilding plan in section 4.5 of the CPS FMP to update the T TARGET (the specified time period for rebuilding the stock) to 17 years and to include annual catch limits (ACLs) for Pacific sardine as follows:

• Overfished status— If the age 1+ biomass is 50,000 metric tons (mt) or less in a given fishing year, the ACL for that year will be set at 2,200 mt or the calculated acceptable biological catch (ABC), whichever is less.

• Rebuilding status— If the age 1+ biomass is greater than 50,000 mt but less than 150,000 (rebuilding target) in a given fishing year, the ACL will be set at 5 percent of the age 1+ biomass for that year or the calculated ABC, whichever is less.

NMFS received two public comments supporting Amendment 23, one from a prominent fishing industry group, the California Wetfish Producers Association, and one from a private citizen. Additionally, NMFS received one comment from a private citizen stating support for the overall objective of the rebuilding plan but providing a variety of suggestions they think should be made to the plan or that NMFS could do in the future. Although some of those suggestions are outside the scope of this action, NMFS nevertheless provides responses to them for additional clarity. NMFS received two public comments opposing Amendment 23, one from the environmental non-governmental organization Oceana and one from an anonymous commenter who opposed commercial fishing of any kind.

Comment 1: Oceana claimed that Alternative 6 does not meet NMFS's legal obligations, and that to be compliant with the law, the ACL must be set at no greater than 5 percent of the estimated biomass for the year (or the calculated ABC, whichever is less). Oceana states that the revised rebuilding plan would increase the relative harvest rate as the stock declines below 44,000 mt. They argued that the modeling analysis indicates that the stock could rebuild within a reasonable timeframe under a fixed 2,200 mt ACL, assuming the stock began at 29,598 mt and grew each year (vs. declined), but that NMFS does not provide any analysis indicating that a 2,200 mt fixed ACL will rebuild the stock when biomass is below 29,598 mt. They further state that without an analysis incorporating the recent stock status or a new analysis of the rebuilding alternatives when the stock is below 2020 levels [29,598 mt], there is no clear evidence that Alternative 6 will rebuild the population. To account for this, Oceana recommends the rebuilding plan include additional restrictions on the fishery when the biomass falls below a specified threshold biomass level, such as 25,000 mt.

Response: When determining whether the revisions to this rebuilding plan comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et. seq. ) and other applicable law, NMFS took into account the impacts to the status and potential rebuilding timelines of the stock, as well as the environment and the fisheries (“Councils should consider the management objectives of their FMPs and their management framework to determine the relevant social, economic, and ecological factors used to determine optimum yield. There will be inherent trade-offs when determining the objectives of the fishery.” (50 CFR 600.310(e)(3)(iii)(B))). The modeling analysis conducted to support the development of Amendment 18 (the original rebuilding plan) reported a difference of one year between the rebuilding timelines of a 5 percent and fixed 2,200 mt annual harvest scenario. Considering the environmentally-linked population swings of sardines are on the order of decades, a one-year difference is negligible. The potential economic impact of further constraining the fisheries that catch sardines, however, could be significant. The rebuilding plan does not increase the harvest rate at low biomass levels, but instead implements ACLs that ensure the fisheries are harvesting at sustainable levels (allowing the stock to rebuild in the shortest amount of time while the fisheries maintain average harvest levels). In addition to the ACL implemented by Amendment 23, if the stock were to approach lower biomass levels (less than approximately 18,000 mt age 1+ biomass, based on recent harvest control rule parameters), the CPS FMP dictates that the ABC would supersede the ACL, resulting in further reductions in catch as the stock declines. Oceana also does not provide a scientific rationale explaining why the catch limit should be reduced below 5 percent at certain biomass levels when the modeling shows the stock can rebuild with a static 2,200 mt ACL.

In modeling rebuilding scenarios for a stock, it is standard practice to project the biomass using the current biomass as the starting point. The 2020 modeling analysis projected the estimated 2020 spawning stock biomass (SSB; 29,598 mt from the 2020 benchmark stock assessment) under different fishing rates and recruitment scenarios. Uncertainty in the rebuilding analysis and therefore how the “model stock” would potentially rebuild was accounted for in a variety of ways. For example, the spawner-recruit relationship used a high s R (total recruitment variability) value, allowing for large fluctuations in recruitment in all rebuilding projections. For scenarios that rebuilt the stock, although the probability of rebuilding increased over time, the projected median spawning stock biomass did not always increase from each year to the next. Considering the 2024 benchmark assessment reported that the SSB has not, in any year since 2020, decreased below the amount analyzed in 2020 (for reference, the most recent estimate of SSB for 2024 was 36,190 mt)  1 , NMFS has determined that additional modeling of the rebuilding alternatives below 2020 levels was not warranted and that the catch limits implemented by this revised rebuilding plan will prevent overfishing and support rebuilding of the stock under varied biomass levels.

Comment 2: Oceana claimed that the revised rebuilding plan does not address what they state are fundamental flaws with overfishing limit (OFL) and ABC. They state that Amendment 23 continues to rely on the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigation (CalCOFI)-based E MSY as a central parameter for calculating catch limits, that it violates the MSA's requirements to base management measures on the best available science, prevent overfishing, and rebuild the population, and cite the April 22, 2024 court order that “the record reflects that use of the CalCOFI temperature index to calculate E MSY consistently and materially overstates the productivity of the Pacific sardine.” They further reference concerns raised in recent years by the Council's advisory bodies that the relationship between the CalCOFI index and productivity is flawed, and their support for re-evaluating the E MSY parameter.

Response: E MSY is a parameter in the OFL and ABC harvest control rules, which were part of the FMP before Amendment 18 was adopted. The CPS FMP does not mandate the use of a CalCOFI-based E MSY to determine the OFL and/or ABC. Amendment 18 also did not mandate its use or specify any methodology for calculating E MSY and neither does Amendment 23. The specific E MSY value used in the OFL and ABC is based upon the annual recommendation of the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to the Council in making recommendations for annual harvest specifications, and reviewed by NMFS during the annual rulemaking process. However, in light of the court ruling that NMFS failed to demonstrate that it relied on the best scientific information available when exclusively using the CalCOFI-based E MSY to set the overfishing limit in the 2023-2024 harvest specifications, NMFS provides the following response.

Under the MSA, the SSC provides scientific advice for NMFS' consideration in fishery management decisions, including ABC and preventing overfishing. Per National Standard 2 at 50 CFR 600.315(a)(2), scientific information that is used to inform decision-making should include an evaluation of its uncertainty and management decisions should recognize the risks, such as those to overfishing, associated with the sources of uncertainty. As we explained in the final rule setting Pacific sardine harvest specifications for the 2024-2025 fishing year (89 FR 93522, November, 27, 2024), in recommending an OFL and ABC for that year that were calculated, in part, by using a CalCOFI-based E MSY , the SSC appropriately accounted for any scientific uncertainty and gaps in scientific information that may have existed, including any surrounding E MSY , in the information used to calculate the recommended reference points.

To help inform the SSC's recommendations during the 2025-2026 harvest specifications process, NMFS conducted a correlation analysis of the CalCOFI-based temperature with sardine productivity (recruits-per-spawner) for the years 1983-2023; an update from the last analysis in 2013 that examined data from 1984 to 2008. In February 2025, NMFS presented the analysis to the SSC's CPS Subcommittee, which reported that “there is still valid statistical evidence for a relationship between CalCOFI [sea surface temperature] and recruits-per-spawner.” At the April 2025 Council meeting, the full SSC reviewed the analysis and reported that the result “does not compel a change at this time.” The SSC recommended the 2025-2026 OFL and ABC be calculated using the “status quo approach to E MSY ,” which utilizes the CalCOFI temperature index.

Comment 3: A private citizen commented that the documentation for this amendment lacks detail on how E MSY , BUFFER, and the fixed DISTRIBUTION factor are derived in calculating the ABC.

Response: The referenced parameters are long-standing parameters of Pacific sardine management that are unchanged by this action. The commenter can find descriptions of these parameters in the CPS FMP, as well in section 1.4.2 of the EA for Amendment 23.

Comment 4: A private citizen commented that the rebuilding framework should include periodic stock reassessments—ideally on a biennial basis—to update recruitment estimates and refine the steepness parameter as new data become available. According to the commenter, this would ensure that the SB 0 estimate, and thus the rebuilding target, remains current.

Response: Per MSA section 304(e)(7) and National Standard guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310, the rebuilding plan process includes routine reviews of the applicable plan to ensure adequate progress is being made towards the rebuilding of the stock. Additionally, extensive analysis, some of which is mentioned by the commenter, went into the choice of an appropriate rebuilding target. This included examining different productivity periods, extent of data and a variety of uncertainties and NMFS has determined that choice represents the best available scientific information.

Comment 5: A private citizen stated that the ACL control rule should be modified to include an automatic precautionary adjustment mechanism, whereby ACLs are reduced if recruitment indices fall below a predefined benchmark that reflects the lower productivity regime.

Response: Although not exactly as described by the comment, under this rebuilding plan, ACLs are conditional upon certain tiered biomass levels, allowing the ACL to adjust based on the status of the stock. Under this approach, the ACL will be restricted to a low level (2,200 mt or the calculated ABC, whichever is less) when the biomass is at or below the 50,000 mt minimum stock size threshold and only allowed to increase when above that level. Additionally, because this framework is based on annual estimates of biomass (based on a measure of recruitment from fishery-independent survey data) and annual calculations of the ABC, NMFS believes the approach is responsive to changing conditions.

Comment 6: A private citizen stated that the final rule ought to explicitly acknowledge the limitations of the model.

Response: Understanding and acknowledging the limitations of the model were an extensive part of the development process of this rebuilding plan. For example, section 3.1 of the EA for Amendment 23 identifies certain model limitations. As explained in that document, due to these limitations, NMFS did not rely exclusively on the modeling analysis in the development of a rebuilding plan for Pacific sardine.

Comment 7: A private citizen commented that the Council should conduct supplementary sensitivity analyses incorporating variable fishing mortality regimes and environmental indices.

Response: The modeling analysis looked at a range of fishing mortality regimes by the U.S. fishery (zero harvest, 5 percent harvest, 2,200 mt fixed annual harvest, and 18 percent harvest) as well as scenarios for harvest by Mexico in order to compare the relative performance of the alternatives in relation to rebuilding timelines.

Comment 8: A private citizen stated that to ensure sustained recovery, NMFS should refine “rebuilt” to mean that the target biomass is not only met but maintained as an average over a minimum period ( e.g., three years, not necessarily consecutive). The commenter also asserted that NMFS should evaluate trade-offs between 14-year and 17-year rebuilding timeframes, and assess potential impacts on stock sustainability, yield variability, and socioeconomic factors.

Response: Refining “rebuilt” is outside of the scope of NMFS' authority under this action as the criteria for rebuilding an overfished stock are established by statute in the MSA and in the guidelines for National Standard 1 (Optimum Yield), which are found in regulation at 50 CFR 600.310. As defined by National Standard 1, the rebuilding target (B MSY ) of 150,000 mt is established as the long-term average size of the stock that would be achieved by fishing at maximum sustainable yield. Although not stated in the comment, NMFS assumes that the reason the commenter mentions an evaluation between a 14-year and 17-year rebuilding timeframe is that the T-target associated with the previous rebuilding plan (Amendment 18) was 14 years. Although that comparison was not explicitly conducted, it was concluded through the analysis in support of this revised rebuilding plan, as well as the previous rebuilding plan, that no management alternative was expected to significantly impact the ability of the Pacific sardine resource to rebuild in the near or long term, as fishing mortality is not the primary driver of stock biomass. Additionally, because of the ecological dynamics of the California Current Ecosystem, there would not be a measurable difference in ecosystem or forage benefits among the expected rebuilding timelines for Pacific sardine. Ultimately, with the closure of the primary directed commercial fishery and harvest limited to the ACL under this rebuilding plan by the live bait, minor directed, and incidental fisheries, the environment will be the primary determinant for increasing stock abundance.

Comment 9: A private citizen stated that NMFS should integrate measurable environmental indices—such as seasonal sea surface temperature and upwelling indices—into ACL-setting decisions. The commenter suggested NMFS could develop and adopt an environmental monitoring program that tracks key indicators—such as seasonal sea surface temperature deviations, upwelling indices, and other relevant metrics—establishing flexible threshold values rather than fixed ones and explore linking ACL adjustments to these indices through periodic reviews rather than via fixed automatic triggers.

Response: Seasonal sea surface temperature is integrated into the calculation of the Pacific sardine OFL and ABC under the harvest control rules established in the CPS FMP, which are unchanged by this amendment. Since 2014, based on annual recommendations by the Council's SSC, the E MSY for Pacific sardine has been based on a temperature-recruitment relationship utilizing a running 3-year average of the CalCOFI temperature index. CalCOFI is a long-term oceanographic and marine ecosystem monitoring and research program formed in 1949 to study the ecological aspects of the Pacific sardine collapse off California. It surveys the physical, biogeochemical, and biological dynamics of the marine environment.

Comment 10: A private citizen suggested that the final rule should evaluate ecosystem dynamics to ensure the rebuilding plan supports overall marine ecosystem health alongside direct stock recovery.

Response: Section 3 of the EA for Amendment 23 evaluates the impact on the target species (Pacific sardine) and the environment (marine predators) as well as potential cumulative impacts, as required under NEPA.

NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (Federal waters) of the BSAI under Federal regulations implementing the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the BSAI FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the BSAI FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

NMFS published a Notice of Availability for amendment 122 in the Federal Register on December 30, 2022 (87 FR 80519), with public comments invited through February 28, 2023. To implement amendment 122, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on February 9, 2023 (88 FR 8592), with public comments invited through March 13, 2023. The Secretary of Commerce approved amendment 122 on March 24, 2023, after considering information from the public and determining that amendment 122 is consistent with the BSAI FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws. NMFS published a final rule on August 8, 2023 (88 FR 53704).

This action amends the final rule for clarity on two accounts: first, this action clarifies the timing of cost recovery process; second, this action updates an incorrect cross-reference.

The PCTC Program implemented a complex suite of management measures to improve fishery conditions for all participants. The PCTC Program is a Limited Access Privilege Program (LAPP) that allocated harvester quota share to harvesters and processors based on their historical catch and processing history. This Program went into effect for the 2024 fishing season. More information about the Program can be found on the website here: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/commercial-fishing/pacific-cod-trawl-cooperative-program.

The PCTC Program is a LAPP that NMFS established under the provisions of section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As specified in section 304(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, for all LAPPs established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is required to collect fees from limited access privilege holders to cover the actual costs of management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement activities associated with LAPPs. Cost recovery fees may not exceed three percent of the ex-vessel value of the fish harvested under the LAPP. The final rule established a process for NMFS to assess a fee on the ex-vessel value of PCTC Program cooperative quota (CQ) harvested by cooperatives in the BSAI.

The annual PCTC Program cost recovery process builds upon existing cost recovery requirements implemented under other LAPPs in the North Pacific. For example, NMFS uses the existing Pacific Cod Ex-vessel Volume and Value Report, which is used to calculate Pacific cod standard ex-vessel prices in other limited access programs. For the PCTC Program, the fee collection process begins immediately after the B season ends on June 10 of each year, and, therefore, the standard ex-vessel prices that had been published in November of the previous year are used to calculate the current year's fees. This lagged standard ex-vessel price from the previous year is applied to the current cost recovery year's CQ landings.

The PCTC Program direct program costs are tracked from July 1 to June 30 of the following year. For example, the direct program costs for the current year of the PCTC Program started July 1, 2024, and will end on June 30, 2025, which will encompass the CQ application process, issuance of CQ, and the fishing seasons of the PCTC Program that extend from January 20 to June 10 each year.

Each year, NMFS publishes a cost recovery fee notice for the PCTC Program, with the most recent notice published August 1, 2024 (89 FR 62724). NMFS sends each cooperative a fee liability letter to inform each cooperative of the fee percentage applied to the current year's landings and the total amount due (fee liability). The letter includes a summary explaining the fee liability determination, including the current fee percentage and details of CQ pounds debited from CQ allocations by permit, date, and prices. Fees must be paid by August 31 of each year.

Each cooperative is responsible for paying cost recovery fees assessed on CQ landings. Failure to pay cost recovery fee liabilities on time will result in NMFS not approving a cooperative's application for a CQ permit the following year until full payment of the fee liability is received by NMFS. The fee liability letter includes NMFS's contact information and provides ample opportunity for cooperatives to reconcile accounts. The agency may pursue collection of any unpaid fees if the formal determination is not appealed and the account remains unpaid or under-paid 30 days after fees are due (August 31 of each year).

To illustrate timing for the 2025 cost recovery cycle, the 2025 PCTC Program fishing year that will have landings subject to cost recovery ends June 10, 2025. NMFS will use 2024 fishing year ex-vessel standard prices derived from the Pacific Cod Ex-Vessel Volume and Value Report submitted by November 10, 2024, for landings made during the 2025 fishing year. Finally, NMFS will use the direct program costs from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, to calculate the 2025 fee percentage (which cannot exceed the three percent statutory limit). By no later than August 1, 2025, the Regional Administrator will publish the standard price and fee percentage in a notice in the Federal Register and send invoices to cooperatives.

The following changes are applied to the regulations promulgated with the final rule (88 FR 53704, August 8, 2023).

At § 679.134(c)(1), NMFS corrects an incorrect cross-reference to halibut deck-sorting (§ 679.120), which now can be found at § 679.102.

NMFS identifies that the regulations pertaining to cost recovery fees could be improved for clarity at § 679.135.

In several places within § 679.135, NMFS changes references to “prices” to “standard ex-vessel prices” to be consistent with terminology.

In several places within § 679.135, NMFS changes references to “catch” or “CQ” to “CQ landings” to be consistent with terminology.

At § 679.135(a)(3)(i), NMFS clarifies when a cooperative must submit payment. Under amendment 122, the intention was for payment to be submitted following the end of the fishing season. The current language states that a cooperative must submit any cost recovery payment no later than August 31 “following” the calendar year in which the CQ landings were made. NMFS replaces “following” with “of,” to clarify that payment is due within the same year as the landings were made, consistent with amendment 122 and the manner in which NMFS has implemented the Program.

At § 679.135(c)(2)(ii), NMFS removes “for the previous calendar year” in describing direct program costs and clarifies language describing value. NMFS clarifies direct program costs are equal to the annual direct program costs for the PCTC Program with any adjustments to the account from payments received in the previous year. For example, the time period for the current PCTC Program year includes direct program costs from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. NMFS corrects language in the definition of value (V) used for the equation to calculate the fee percentage, clarifying that the standard ex-vessel price is multiplied by CQ landings for that fishing year to calculate the total value of the PCTC Program fishery.

At § 679.135(c)(2)(iii), NMFS clarifies that the fee percentage is based on the current year's CQ landings using the standard ex-vessel price from the previous year.

Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, this action is necessary to carry out amendment 122 to the BSAI FMP because the current regulatory language at 50 CFR 679.135 has generated some confusion among fishery participants. This rule clarifies the timing of the cost recovery process published in the final rule regulations (88 FR 53704, August 8, 2023) and represents minor, non-substantive changes to those regulations. The NMFS Assistant Administrator (AA) has determined that this final rule is consistent with amendment 122 to the BSAI FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

The AA finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such requirement is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This action corrects a cross-reference and corrects regulatory language to clarify the timing and calculation of cost recovery fees, consistent with amendment 122 to the BSAI FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. These minor, non-substantive corrections reflect the manner in which NMFS has implemented the PCTC Program and attempt to alleviate some confusion among fishery participants. If this correction is delayed to allow for notice and comment, it would result in continued confusion for fishery participants, who will be required to pay cost recovery fees for the current fishing year before NMFS would be able to complete notice and comment rulemaking. Without this correction, commercial fishermen may have difficulty understanding when their cost recovery fees are due, which could lead to problems when applying for CQ next year. In addition, the public was already provided with notice and opportunity to comment on this issue during the public comment period for the Notice of Availability for amendment 122 (87 FR 80519), and the proposed rule (88 FR 8592), so additional opportunity for public comment at this point would not be meaningful. Therefore, in order to avoid any negative consequences that could result from failure to make this correction, the AA finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment. For the reasons above, the AA also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date and make this rule effective immediately upon publication. 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 rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS corrects 50 CFR part 679 by making the following correcting amendment: