The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the 1990 Act), Pub. L. 101-410, provided for the regular evaluation of CMPs by Federal agencies. Periodic inflationary adjustments of CMPs ensure that the consequences of statutory violations adequately reflect the gravity of such offenses and that CMPs are properly accounted for and collected by the Federal Government. In April 1996, the 1990 Act was amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), Pub. L. 104-134, requiring Federal agencies to adjust their CMPs at least once every four years. However, because inflationary adjustments to CMPs were statutorily capped at ten percent of the maximum penalty amount, but only required to be calculated every four years, CMPs in many cases did not correspond with the true measure of inflation over the preceding four-year period, leading to a decline in the real value of the penalty. To remedy this decline, the 2015 Act (section 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) requires agencies to adjust CMP amounts with annual inflationary adjustments through a rulemaking using a methodology mandated by the legislation. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties.

A civil monetary penalty is “any penalty, fine, or other sanction” that: (1) “is for a specific amount” or “has a maximum amount” under Federal law; and (2) a Federal agency assesses or enforces “pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts.” 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

The MSPB is authorized to assess CMPs pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1215(a)(3) and 5 U.S.C. 7326 in disciplinary actions brought by the Special Counsel. The corresponding MSPB regulation for both CMPs is 5 CFR 1201.126(a). As required by the 2015 Act, and pursuant to guidance issued by OMB, MSPB is now making an annual adjustment for 2025, according to the prescribed formulas.

The CMP listed in 5 U.S.C. 1215(a)(3) was established in 1978 with the enactment of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), Pub. L. 95-454, section 202(a), 92 Stat. 1121-30 (Oct. 13, 1978), and originally codified at 5 U.S.C. 1207(b). That CMP was last amended by section 106 of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-199, 12 Stat. 1468 (Nov. 27, 2012), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 1215(a)(3), which provided for a CMP “not to exceed $1,000.” The CMP authorized in 5 U.S.C. 7326 was established in 2012 by section 4 of the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012 (Hatch Act), Pub. L. 112-230, 126 Stat. 1617 (Dec. 28, 2012), which provided for a CMP “not to exceed $1,000.” On February 14, 2024, MSPB issued a final rule which increased the maximum CMP allowed under both 5 U.S.C. 1215(a)(3) and 5 U.S.C. 7326 to $1,330 for the year 2024. See 89 FR 11163 (February 14, 2024). This increase reflected the annual increase for the year 2024 mandated by the 2015 Act.

On December 17, 2024, OMB issued guidance on calculating the annual inflationary adjustment for 2025. See Memorandum from Shalanda D. Young, Director, OMB, to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies re: Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2025, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, M-25-02 (Dec. 17, 2024). Therein, OMB notified agencies that the annual adjustment multiplier for 2025, based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), is 1.02598 and that the 2025 annual adjustment amount is obtained by multiplying the 2024 penalty amount by the 2025 annual adjustment multiplier, and rounding to the nearest dollar. Therefore, the new maximum penalty under the CSRA and the Hatch Act is $1,330 × 1.02598 = $1,365.00.

The revised CMP amounts will go into effect on July 22, 2025. All violations for which CMPs are assessed after the effective date of this rule will be assessed at the adjusted penalty level regardless of whether the violation occurred before the effective date.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), MSPB has determined that good cause exists for waiving the general notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures as to these technical amendments. The notice and comment procedures are being waived because Congress has specifically exempted agencies from these requirements when implementing the 2015 Act. The 2015 Act explicitly requires the agency to make subsequent annual adjustments notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553, the section of the Administrative Procedure Act that normally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment. It is also in the public interest that the adjusted rates for CMPs under the CSRA and the Hatch Act become effective as soon as possible to maintain their effective deterrent effect.

The MSPB has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis is required.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for 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). As discussed above, the 2015 Act does not require agencies to first publish a proposed rule when adjusting CMPs within their jurisdiction. Thus, the RFA does not apply to this final rule.

This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth above, 5 CFR part 1201 is amended as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2025-1366; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-01152-E” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

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

The FAA issued AD 2025-07-02, Amendment 39-23003 (90 FR 14719, April 4, 2025) (AD 2025-07-02), for certain Rotax Model 912 iSc2 Sport, 912 iSc3 Sport, 915 iSc2 C24, and 915 iSc3 C24 engines. AD 2025-07-02 was prompted by an MCAI originated by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued Emergency AD 2025-0019-E, dated January 16, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0019-E) (also referred to as the MCAI), to address an unsafe condition identified as deviations during the manufacturing process that caused incorrect application of a certain thread-locker to certain sprag clutch housing and oil spray nozzles. AD 2025-07-02 required repetitive operational checks of the battery backup function with removal of the engine from service if insufficient battery power is found, one-time inspections of the oil spray nozzle and generator stator assembly, and, depending on the results of the inspections, replacement with parts eligible for installation. The FAA issued AD 2025-07-02 to prevent blockage of the oil nozzle, inadequate cooling, and damage to the generators which, if not addressed, could result in engine in-flight shutdown and forced landing, damage to the airplane, and injury to the occupants.

Since the FAA issued AD 2025-07-02, a comment was received from the public noting an error in AD 2025-07-02. The commenter pointed out that the associated service material includes procedures for removing the ignition housing on the back side of the engine to inspect the generator stator assembly. The service material also includes a statement that the inspection of the generator stator assembly is only applicable if the oil spray nozzle is classified as unserviceable when inspected. The commenter also stated that, based on the service material, if the flow test of the oil spray nozzle is determined to be serviceable, then removal of the ignition housing and inspection of the generator stator assembly would not be required. The FAA has reviewed the service material and agrees with the views of the commenter. Therefore, the FAA has changed the required actions from AD 2025-07-02 to now include the inspection of the generator stator assembly as an on-condition action to the results of the inspection of the oil spray nozzle.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1366.

The FAA reviewed Rotax Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912 i-016 R1/ASB-915 i-016 R1/ASB-916 i-006 R1, Revision 1, dated December 20, 2024 (published as a single document), which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of April 21, 2025 (90 FR 14719, April 4, 2025).

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.

These products have been approved by the civil 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, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and material referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD retains all of the requirements of AD 2025-07-02. However, the one-time inspection of the generator stator assembly and wiring has been changed to an on-condition action based on the results of the one-time inspection of the oil spray nozzle.

Where EASA AD 2025-0019-E applies to Rotax Model 915 iSc A, 916 iSc A, 916 iSc B, and 916 iSc C24 series engines, all models, all serial numbers, this AD does not, as these engine models do not have an FAA type certificate. Although none of these models are listed on the current FAA type certificate, the Rotax Model 915i and 916i series engines are undergoing FAA validation towards FAA type certification.

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

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because deviations during the manufacturing process of certain sprag clutch housing and oil spray nozzles could cause blockage of the oil nozzle and damage to the generators which, if not corrected, could lead to engine in-flight shutdown and forced landing, damage to the airplane, and injury to the occupants. Since this condition can result rapidly and without warning, the FAA has determined that these engines will need to be inspected within 25 flight hours or within 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD. These compliance times are shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

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

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 25 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The new requirements of this AD add no additional economic burden.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS 365 N3, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 25, 2025 (90 FR 17350). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0261, dated December 20, 2022, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2022-0261) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that there have been several reports of false engine fire warnings. Subsequent investigation determined that a manufacturing non-compliance on the engine fire detectors, part numbers (P/N) H243-1 or H443-1, caused a shift of the detection threshold towards temperature values that are lower than specified, and potentially led to false engine fire warnings. When two engines on a helicopter are fitted with a non-conforming engine fire detector, an engine fire warning could occur on both engines during the same flight. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a commanded engine in-flight shut-down and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing affected engine fire detectors and prohibit installing an affected engine fire detector or an engine that contains an affected engine fire detector. 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-2025-0625.

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

These products have been approved by the civil 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, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. 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 EASA AD 2022-0261, which specifies procedures for replacing affected engine fire detectors (P/N H243-1 or H443-1) and prohibits installation of an affected engine fire detector or an engine that contains an affected engine fire detector. 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 3 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Replacing an engine fire detector takes 1 work-hour and parts cost $1,800, for an estimated cost of $1,885 per helicopter and $5,655 for the U.S. fleet.

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 information. This final rule revises the Department of the Interior's (DOI or the Department) regulations, which are administered by BOEM, that contain a provision listing cross references in section 556.103 of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This section cites other laws and regulations pertaining to offshore oil and gas development. Upon reviewing this regulation, BOEM has determined that it should be rescinded because it does not regulate the public and is unnecessary. BOEM has determined that this reason, independently and alone, justifies rescission of 30 CFR 556.103. BOEM has no interest in maintaining a rule that is unnecessary.

BOEM has determined that this rule is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Additionally, BOEM has determined that there is good cause for making this administrative amendment final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because the revisions are not substantive and have no impact on the regulatory requirements of the affected parts. BOEM has determined that public comment on such administrative changes is unnecessary and that there is good cause under the APA for proceeding with a final rule. Furthermore, because a notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the APA or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable. Accordingly, this rule is issued in final form. There is good cause to make this rule effective in fewer than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because the revisions are administrative in nature. Therefore, this final rule is effective upon publication.

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

30 CFR 556.103 contains only a list of cross references to other regulatory provisions and does not promulgate any regulations. BOEM does not wish to maintain unnecessary rules, and this section will be removed. This final action removes 30 CFR 556.103.

30 CFR 556.103 does not regulate the public. This is an administrative change only and its removal does not affect any legal rights, obligations, or interests of any affected party.

In addition to being available in the docket, BOEM will post an electronic copy of this final rule at: https://www.boem.gov/about-boem/regulations-guidance/published-rules.

Section 5 of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)(43 U.S.C. 1334) authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations to administer leasing for mineral development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Section 5(a) of OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1334(a)) authorizes the Secretary to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out [provisions of OCSLA]” related to leasing on the OCS. This rule only makes administrative changes to remove a section that does not regulate the public.

E.O. 12866 gives OMB the authority to review regulatory actions that are categorized as “significant”; i.e., those actions that are likely to result in a rule that may:

• Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local or tribal governments or communities;

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

• Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

• Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, it was not submitted to OMB for review.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability and reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. BOEM has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA unless 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). Because no proposed rule was published for this recission, no RFA analysis is required.

The SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 804(2), requires BOEM to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis, provide guidance, and help small businesses comply with statutes and regulations for major rulemakings. This action is not subject to the SBREFA because it: (1) does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (3) does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

BOEM anticipates the final rule would have neither significant employment nor small business impacts; nor cause major price increases for consumers, businesses, or governments; nor significantly degrade competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. businesses to compete against foreign businesses. The rule only rescinds a section that does not regulate the public.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman, and to the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of BOEM, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

The UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of regulatory actions on State, local and Tribal governments, and the private sector. Section 202 of UMRA generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for each proposed and final rule with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. BOEM has determined 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 groups.

The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.

E.O. 12630 ensures that government actions affecting the use of private property are undertaken on a well-reasoned basis with due regard for the potential financial impacts imposed on the government. This action does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

E.O. 13132 revoked and replaced E.O.s 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). E.O. 13132 took effect on November 2, 1999, and thus applies to actions published on or after November 2, 1999. Sections 3 and 6 of E.O. 13132 apply to policies with federalism implications, defined in the Executive Order as including actions that 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.”

Regulatory actions that 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 are subject to E.O. 13132. 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. 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.

E.O. 12988 requires that rules:

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

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

This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988.

The Department and BOEM strive to strengthen their government-to-government relationships with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of the Tribes' right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. BOEM evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy, Departmental Manual part 512, chapters 4 and 5, and E.O. 13175. BOEM determined that this rule has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Corporations and that consultation under existing Department and BOEM policies is not required.

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the OMB under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) is not required. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 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 significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed environmental analysis under NEPA is not required because the final rule is covered by a categorical exclusion (see 43 CFR 46.205). This final rule meets the criteria set forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i) for a Departmental categorical exclusion in that this final rule is “of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” BOEM has also determined that the final rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

In promulgating this rule, BOEM did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554, app. C, sec. 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154). In accordance with the Data Quality Act, the Department has issued guidance regarding the quality of information that it relies upon for regulatory decisions. This guidance is available at the Department's website at: https://www.doi.gov/ocio/policy-mgmt-support/information-and-records-management/iq.

E.O. 13211 was issued on May 22, 2001, and requires Federal agencies to prepare a “Statement of Energy Effects” when undertaking certain regulatory actions. This statement describes the adverse effects of a “significant energy action” on energy supply, distribution and use; reasonable alternatives to the action; and the expected effects of the alternatives on energy supply, distribution and use.

Under E.O. 13211, BOEM is required to prepare and submit to OMB a “Statement of Energy Effects” for “significant energy actions.” This should include a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increased use of foreign supplies) expected to result from the action and a discussion of reasonable alternatives and their effects. This action is not subject to E.O. 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.

The CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, established a mechanism to expedite congressional review of agency rules. The CRA generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. It is important to note that the CRA applies only to final rules; it does not apply to proposed rules. BOEM generally submits a report containing the rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A “major rule” cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register or is submitted to Congress, whichever is later.

This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of Department organization, procedure or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)).

This action by the Assistant Secretary is taken herein pursuant to an existing delegation of authority.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR part 556 as set forth below:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. It has been determined that the Broadway bridge is to be dismantled and removed from the Kentucky River. This work will begin to affect vessel navigation on the Kentucky River on July 17, 205. The safety zone must be established by that date to protect people and vessels from the hazards of ongoing demolition work. Insufficient time exists to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. Therefore, delaying the effective date for this emergency safety zone to complete the NPRM process would also be contrary to the public interest as it would delay the safety measures vital to safe navigation.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with bridge demolition starting July 17, 2025, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of working vessels and machinery. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the bridge is being demolished.

This Temporary final rule establishes a safety zone from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. on July 17, 2025 and from 6 a.m. July 22, 2025 until 10 p.m. on August 2, 2025. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters from mile marker 65.5 to 66 of the Kentucky River. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the bridge is being demolished. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone will restrict vessel traffic from entering or transiting within a 0.5 mile area of navigable waterways on the Kentucky River between MMs 65.5 and 66 and will be enforced only during periods of bridge demolition work.. Moreover, the COTP will end the safety zone as soon as the demolition and removal has been completed. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about enforcement of the zone. The rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 16 hours for one day and an additional safety zone lasting 24 hours for 12 days that will prohibit entry within a half mile stretch of the Kentucky River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce multiple safety zones for annual events in the Captain of the Port Eastern Great Lakes Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939, Table 1 to § 165.939 for events occurring in the months of August and September as follows:

• Event No. (H)(8): Tri CLE Rock Roll Run—from 4:30 a.m. through 10:30 a.m. on August 10, 2025.

• Event No. (H)(2): D-Day Conneaut—from 1:30 p.m. through 5:30 p.m. on August 14-16, 2025.

• Event No. (H)(1): Whiskey Island Paddlefest—from 7:00 a.m. through 1:30 p.m. on August 16, 2025.

• Event No. (I)(2): Cleveland National Air Show—from 3:00 p.m. through 6:30 p.m. on August 28, 2025; from 7:00 a.m. through 5:30 p.m. on August 29, 2025; and from 7:30 a.m. through 6:30 p.m. on August 30 through September 1, 2025.

• Event No. (I)(3): Head of the Cuyahoga (29th Annual Head of the Cuyahoga Regatta)—from 4:30 a.m. through 5:30 p.m. on September 27, 2025.

Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Eastern Great Lakes or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may request permission from the COTP Eastern Great Lakes via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of COTP Eastern Great Lakes or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

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

EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comment since the amendments simply establish an additional option for owners or operators of an active CCR facility or an inactive facility with a legacy CCR surface impoundment to comply with the FER Part 1 requirements and extends the remaining deadlines for owners and operators of CCRMU. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to adopt the provisions in this direct final rule if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. In the companion proposed rule the Agency is additionally soliciting comment on an alternative to extend the deadlines to prepare part 2 of the FER by 12 months. If EPA receives comment that convinces EPA that extending the FER Part 2 deadline is warranted, the Agency will withdraw this direct final rule and pursue such an extension through standard rulemaking procedures. The Agency will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of the proposed rule document.

If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public about the specific regulatory paragraph(s) or amendment(s) that will not take effect. The provisions that are not withdrawn will become effective on the date set out above. EPA would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the comments and new information submitted in response to the proposed rule.

In this action, EPA is not reconsidering, proposing to reopen, or otherwise soliciting comment on any of the existing CCR regulations beyond those specifically identified in this action. For the reader's convenience, EPA has provided a background description of existing requirements in several places throughout this preamble. These descriptions do not reopen the underlying described provisions, but merely explain the context to inform the public of the basis for this action's regulatory amendments. EPA will not respond to comments submitted on any issues other than those specifically identified in this action, and such comments will not be considered part of the rulemaking record.

This rule may be of interest to electric utilities and independent power producers that fall within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 221112. The reference to NAICS code 221112 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This discussion lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not described here could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in § 257.50 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

EPA is amending the regulations governing the disposal of CCR in CCR management units (CCRMU), which are codified in subpart D of part 257 of title 40 of the CFR (CCR regulations). CCR management units are “any area of land on which any noncontainerized accumulation of CCR is received, is placed, or is otherwise managed, that is not a regulated CCR unit. . . .” See § 257.53. Specifically, EPA is (1) establishing an additional option for owners or operators of active facilities or inactive facilities with a legacy CCR surface impoundment to comply with the FER Part 1 requirements and (2) extending the remaining deadlines for owners and operators of CCRMU. Further details are discussed in Unit IV. of this preamble.

EPA is publishing this rule under the authority of sections 1008(a)(3), 2002(a), 4004, and 4005(a), (d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 and the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, 42 U.S.C. 6907(a), 6912(a), 6944, 6945(a) and (d).

EPA establishes the requirements under RCRA sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) without taking cost into account. See, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, et al. v. EPA ( USWAG ) 901 F.3d 414, 448-49 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The following cost estimates are presented in the Regulatory Economic Assessment (REA) and summarized in this preamble for compliance with OMB Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. The requirements in this rule do not rely on these cost estimates.

The REA estimates that the annualized cost savings of this action will be approximately $2.97-$3.48 million per year when discounting at 3%. The REA estimates that the annualized cost savings of this action will be approximately $9.43-$11.3 million per year when discounting at 7%. The REA estimates that the annualized reduction in benefits of this action will be approximately $0.18-$0.62 million per year when discounting at 3%. The REA estimates that the annualized reduction in benefits of this action will be approximately $0.38-$1.20 million per year when discounting at 7%. Overall, the REA estimates that the net annualized cost savings of this action will be $2.84-$3.63 million per year when discounting at 3%, and $9.05-$10.1 million when discounting at 7%.

Further information on the economic effects of this action can be found in Unit V. of this preamble.

On April 17, 2015, EPA finalized national minimum criteria for the disposal of CCR as solid waste under Subtitle D of RCRA titled, “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities” (80 FR 21302) (2015 CCR Rule). The 2015 CCR Rule, codified in subpart D of part 257 of title 40 of the CFR, established regulations for existing and new CCR landfills, existing and new CCR surface impoundments, including all lateral expansions of these CCR units. The 2015 CCR Rule also imposed requirements on inactive surface impoundments at active facilities but exempted inactive surface impoundments at inactive facilities. On August 21, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded the provision that exempted inactive impoundments at inactive facilities from the CCR regulations. USWAG, 901 F.3d at 432-34.

On May 18, 2023, in response to the 2018 USWAG decision, EPA published the proposed rule for legacy CCR surface impoundments which included revisions to the CCR regulations (88 FR 31982).

On May 8, 2024, EPA published the Legacy Final Rule regulating inactive surface impoundments at inactive facilities (legacy CCR surface impoundments or legacy impoundments) under 40 CFR part 257, subpart D (89 FR 38950). In addition, the final rule established requirements to address the risks from the direct placement of CCR on the land that was exempt from regulation under the 2015 CCR Rule. This included inactive CCR landfills, as well as CCR surface impoundments and landfills that closed prior to the effective date of the 2015 CCR Rule; the final rule refers to these newly regulated units as CCRMU. The Legacy Final Rule added definitions for legacy CCR surface impoundments and CCRMU, among other terms. It also established the regulatory requirements applicable to legacy CCR surface impoundments and CCRMU, which largely consist of requiring compliance with certain existing CCR regulations, along with tailored compliance deadlines.

Owners or operators of an active facility or a facility with a legacy CCR surface impoundment are required to conduct a facility evaluation to identify and delineate any CCRMU at the facility and document the findings in two reports, FER Part 1 and FER Part 2. See § 257.75(b). The FER Part 1 documents the thorough review of readily and reasonably available records regarding where CCR was either routinely and systematically placed on land, or where facility activities otherwise resulted in measurable accumulations of CCR on land. The FER Part 2 documents the conclusions of a physical evaluation of the facility to address any data and information gaps identified in FER Part 1. Together, the FER Parts 1 and 2 give a complete picture of the historic use, placement and the status of CCR at the facility, ultimately identifying any CCRMU of 1 ton or greater onsite. In addition, owners or operators of CCRMU must comply with the existing requirements in 40 CFR part 257, subpart D for groundwater monitoring, corrective action (where necessary), and in certain cases, closure, and post-closure care requirements. This action addresses the compliance timeframes for the FER Part 1 and extends the deadlines for the remaining CCRMU provisions as discussed in Unit IV. of this preamble.

After the Legacy Final Rule went into effect on November 8, 2024, some members of the regulated community informed the Agency that they were facing challenges that would adversely impact their ability to comply with specific compliance deadlines for CCRMU. The information EPA received from the regulated community is available in the rulemaking docket. To address the challenges that these facilities are facing, EPA is revising the compliance deadlines for the FER Part 1 and the remaining CCRMU provisions.

EPA is revising the facility evaluation provisions in § 257.75 to provide flexibility to owners or operators of active facilities or facilities with a legacy CCR surface impoundment in preparing the reports documenting compliance ( i.e., FER Part 1 and FER Part 2). The current regulations require the facility evaluation to be completed in two consecutive steps with separate deadlines to prepare FER Parts 1 and 2. Under this action, the Agency is finalizing an additional option to allow the two parts of the FER to be prepared concurrently so long as both reports are submitted no later than the current FER Part 2 deadline. That is, FER Parts 1 and 2 would need to be prepared no later than February 8, 2027, as specified in § 257.75(d)(1). In this action, EPA is not proposing to change the deadline to prepare the FER Part 2 or to eliminate the report documenting compliance with part 1 of the facility evaluation ( i.e., FER Part 1).

In the Legacy Proposed Rule (88 FR 32020-32023), EPA proposed to require owners or operators of active or inactive facilities with one or more regulated CCR unit(s) to conduct a facility evaluation to confirm whether any CCRMU exist on-site and if so, delineate the lateral and vertical extent of the unit(s). EPA proposed that facilities prepare one report, to be completed in two consecutive steps, with a single deadline. As proposed, the first step would consist of a thorough review of available records in combination with a physical facility inspection and any necessary field work to fill any data gaps from the review of available records. The second step of the facility evaluation would be to generate a professional engineer-certified FER to document the findings of the facility evaluation. The proposed compliance deadline for the completion of the FER was no later than three months after the effective date of the final rule.

Many commenters disagreed with EPA's proposal of a two-step process documented in a single report. They instead suggested EPA split the information collection requirements from the physical evaluation requirements, stating the separation would provide a more thorough evaluation of existing available information to better inform the physical evaluation to fill data gaps and properly identify CCRMU. Commenters also stated that the proposed FER deadline was infeasible and did not allow sufficient time to gather the required information and conduct a physical inspection. Most commenters cited concerns regarding the accessibility of historic information or data, difficulty locating off-site record storage, the possible extensive volume of information, the possible iterative nature of field work and sampling, the impact of seasonal disruptions to field work, the lack of qualified field personnel and the timing to acquire their services through contracts. Multiple commenters also suggested allowing significantly more time to complete individual aspects of the FER requirements.

In responses to these comments, the Legacy Final Rule adopted a two-part facility evaluation process with two separate P.E.-certified reports and compliance deadlines. See 89 FR 39054-39059. The FER Part 1 includes the results of the available information collection and evaluation and has a compliance deadline of February 9, 2026. The FER Part 2 addresses data and information gaps through a physical evaluation of the facility and has a compliance deadline of February 8, 2027. Together, the FER Part 1 and Part 2 will give a complete picture of the historic use, placement, and the status of CCR at each facility, ultimately identifying and delineating the lateral and vertical extents of any CCRMU onsite.

When determining the final compliance deadlines for the FERs, EPA relied heavily on the information provided by commenters citing the shortages and backlogs of qualified contractors, increased strain on those contractors related to the number of CCR units complying with the CCR rule simultaneously, difficulty accessing and reviewing historical documentation, potential seasonal disruptions, and time needed to perform quality control and quality assurance. After considering the information provided by the commenters, EPA substantially extended the compliance dates and separated the FER into two parts with separate deadlines to prepare the reports. Specifically, the final rule required FER 1 to be completed by February 9, 2026 (15 months from the effective date), and FER 2 to be completed by February 8, 2027 (27 months from the effective date).

Since publication of the Legacy Final Rule, several companies have identified challenges in preparing the FER Part 1 report by the current deadline because of difficulty in obtaining, accessing and reviewing historical documentation. For example, EPA has received feedback that it is taking facilities longer than expected to process voluminous historical records and information. One company with multiple facilities has records stored in various locations in different states, including off-site warehouses, filing cabinets at office and plant locations, and electronic records stored on various servers or in a file database system. This company indicated that it has located over a quarter million boxes of records stored at ten off-site warehouses, as well as over 5.8 million electronic records. Another company described locating nearly 600 boxes and 30 file cabinets of documents resulting in approximately 30,000 pages and nearly 4 gigabytes of information in need of review and assessment. Other facilities have stated that they have collected tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of documents thus far. Companies have reported that searching through these records is time consuming because of the sheer volume of information that must be reviewed. Additionally, narrowing the search is often complicated because the description of the contents of the boxes are vague or not detailed.

Companies have also stated that identifying relevant records maintained in electronic formats has presented challenges. These companies reported that in many cases electronic records are not given many useful attributes on which to search so it has been difficult to identify what documents may provide useful information. One company described the difficulty of identifying relevant files that have been digitized and preserved on a hard drive for a facility that operated for 40 years. Another company stated that operating systems hosting documents have changed over time ( e.g., software systems for document management and storage), as well as some information being stored on out-of-date electronic filing systems. Moreover, some companies have found that subsequent conversions to newer operating systems were not seamless, thus creating issues in retrieving data. Finally, a company discussed the challenges with accessing and reviewing microfiche information, specifically that the process of digitizing microfiche information is time consuming.

Multiple companies have also found that many of the historical engineering and construction documents and drawings stored in boxes at offsite warehouses are in poor condition. These companies reported that documents are torn or otherwise damaged, making them illegible or difficult to use. Older drawings or documents that have been scanned and saved electronically have poor resolution or are faint and difficult to read. These companies have stated that document condition and completeness has slowed the review process.

EPA has also received feedback that the current FER Part 1 deadline does not provide sufficient time for facilities owned and operated by affiliate companies to collaborate on the FER. These companies further stated that such coordination is time-consuming, but necessary to ensure uniformity across different companies and facilities.

Several companies also stated that they are using contractors to complete the facility evaluation process, including the drafting of the report documenting compliance with part 1 of the facility evaluation requirements ( i.e., FER Part 1). These companies have identified shortages and backlogs in qualified contractors resulting from the simultaneous demand for contractors.

Many of the specific difficulties that have been presented to the Agency primarily relate to the information gathering tasks required under FER Part 1. One suggestion offered to address these concerns was to provide companies with additional flexibility to complete the FER Part 1, consistent with the Agency's original proposal. EPA is adopting that approach, by creating an additional regulatory option under which a facility could prepare both FER Parts 1 and 2 by February 8, 2027 ( i.e., by the existing deadline for FER Part 2).

This option of a single deadline for FER Part 1 and Part 2 (as opposed to two separate deadlines) allows flexibility to complete tasks, such as reviewing historical documentation and conducting field work to confirm the presence of CCRMU. The activities involved in achieving compliance with the facility evaluation requirements (FER Parts 1 and 2) ( e.g., coordinating with local, state, and federal authorities; collecting samples; conducting field work; receiving lab results) are susceptible to factors outside a facility's control, such as extreme weather events, shortages of qualified contractors, and permitting or approval delays, and therefore, warrant greater flexibility. Additionally, required activities can be restricted dependent on the time of year and the location of the facility ( e.g., due to seasonality, protected species, site clearing restrictions). Because all the CCRMU requirements build upon the FER, EPA must ensure that facilities nationwide can achieve regulatory compliance by the deadline. Utilizing a single deadline for the facility evaluation requirements allows facilities to make reasonable accommodations for facility-specific challenges in a way the existing deadlines do not.

Under this action, compliance with the existing provisions that require completion of the FER Parts 1 and 2 by separate deadlines would remain as an option. EPA is retaining this as an option because most commenters on the original rule raised concern with a two-step process documented in a single report. They instead suggested EPA split the information collection requirements from the physical evaluation requirements, stating the separation would provide a more thorough evaluation of existing available information to better inform the physical evaluation to fill data gaps and properly identify CCRMU. Establishing alternative compliance options ensures that these concerns will still be addressed, and that facilities will have flexibility to account for their individual circumstances.

EPA is not modifying the FER Part 2 deadline because, as noted, it does not appear that the deadline for FER Part 2 needs to be adjusted to address the concerns that have thus far been raised to the Agency. Nevertheless, in the companion proposed rule, EPA is soliciting comment on whether facilities have identified challenges that warrant extending the FER Part 2 deadline. See the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register publication.

Therefore, EPA is providing owners or operators with two options to meet the FER Part 1 requirements at § 257.75(c). An owner or operator may still complete an FER Part 1 no later than the existing compliance deadline of February 9, 2026, or, alternatively, may complete it along with the FER Part 2, no later than February 8, 2027 ( i.e., the existing compliance deadline for FER Part 2).

EPA is extending the deadline for owners or operators of CCRMU to comply with the groundwater monitoring provisions in § 257.90. The current regulations require owners or operators of CCRMU to have designed and installed the groundwater monitoring system, developed the groundwater sampling and analysis plan, collected eight independent samples, and initiated detection and assessment monitoring no later than May 8, 2028. Under this action, the Agency is providing owners or operators of CCRMU more time to comply with these requirements. Specifically, EPA is extending the groundwater monitoring compliance deadline by 15 months, to no later than August 8, 2029.

In the Legacy Proposed Rule, EPA proposed to require owners and operators of regulated CCRMU to comply largely with the existing groundwater monitoring and corrective action criteria in §§ 257.90 through 257.98. However, EPA also proposed to require sampling and analysis of constituents listed in appendix IV. at the same time as those listed in appendix III. See 88 FR 32023-32024. In addition, EPA proposed two deadlines for the groundwater monitoring requirements, instead of the single deadline in the 2015 CCR Rule. The first deadline was six months from the effective date of the final rule for the installation of the groundwater monitoring network and development of the groundwater sampling and analysis plan. The second deadline was 24 months from the effective date of the final rule for the initiation of the combined detection and assessment monitoring, including the collection of the eight independent samples for each background and downgradient well, as required by § 257.94(b).

EPA received numerous comments on the proposed compliance timeframes, including the proposal to establish two separate deadlines. Commenters overwhelmingly disagreed with the split deadlines, stating the split eliminated the flexibility provided under the 2015 CCR Rule's single deadline. Additionally, most commenters stated the proposed compliance deadlines were infeasible and should, at a minimum, allow as much time for compliance as the 2015 CCR Rule deadlines, although several commenters expressed that even the 2015 CCR Rule deadlines were too short to develop adequate groundwater monitoring networks, sampling and analysis plans, and corrective action programs. Commenters pointed to several factors that they believed EPA did not fully incorporate into the proposed deadlines: EPA's gross underestimation of the CCRMU universe; the large number of CCR units ( i.e., existing CCR units, legacy CCR surface impoundments, CCRMU) competing for limited resources to meet overlapping compliance deadlines; the limited number of qualified contractors available to conduct necessary activities to reach the compliance deadlines; the nationwide labor shortage; limited existing alternative disposal options; overlapping regulatory requirements ( e.g., state drilling permits, timing restrictions related to protected habitats, state CCR permits, Consent Decrees/Orders); and seasonality impacts.

As explained in the Legacy Final Rule, in response to comments, EPA finalized a single deadline of 42 months from the effective date for owners or operators of regulated CCRMU to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements. See 89 FR 39061-39069. EPA was convinced by commenters that a single deadline would provide facilities with necessary flexibility to complete tasks required for compliance, such as installing groundwater wells and collecting independent samples. The activities involved in achieving compliance with the groundwater monitoring requirements ( i.e., drilling wells, collecting samples, receiving lab results) are susceptible to factors outside a facility's control, such as extreme weather events, shortages of qualified contractors, and permitting or approval delays, and therefore, warrant greater flexibility. Therefore, EPA concluded that a single deadline for the groundwater monitoring requirements gives facilities more opportunities to make reasonable accommodations for regional factors.

Additionally, EPA reevaluated the CCRMU groundwater compliance timeframe considering the following: the potential size of the CCRMU universe; seasonality; required local and state approvals to clear vegetation or drill wells; need to coordinate with local or state regulatory authorities; the national labor shortage and contractor and laboratory backlogs; and the impact of overlapping compliance deadlines. Overall, EPA found the information provided regarding the infeasibility of the proposed groundwater compliance deadlines convincing. Therefore, EPA substantially extended the deadlines, to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements in §§ 257.90 through 257.95 until May 8, 2028. This deadline granted facilities more than the amount of time facilities had to comply with the 2015 CCR Rule; it also ensured that the initial groundwater compliance deadlines for legacy CCR surface impoundments do not coincide with the initial groundwater compliance deadlines for CCRMU.

Since publication of the Legacy Final Rule, members of the regulated community have raised concerns that the existing deadline is infeasible for many owners or operators of CCRMU. These entities have stated that the compliance timeframes in the Legacy Final Rule incorrectly assume that the FER process can proceed concurrently with the first tasks required to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements. They contend that the first tasks to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements ( i.e., the design and installation of the groundwater monitoring system) cannot begin until all CCRMU onsite are identified and delineated, which in many cases will be ongoing through late 2026. One organization specifically pointed out that it is impossible to design a groundwater monitoring system that accurately represents the groundwater passing the CCRMU's waste boundary and the quality of background groundwater, as required in § 257.91, before the unit is fully delineated. Furthermore, the CCR regulations allow for the use of multiunit systems, which requires a complete knowledge of all CCR units onsite prior to design.

These parties have also stated that they use third parties to complete tasks required to comply with the groundwater monitoring provisions, including the design and installation of the groundwater monitoring network and the collection and analysis of samples. These companies have identified shortages and backlogs in qualified contractors and laboratories resulting from the increased demand on these resources and existing backlogs and labor shortages as discussed in the Legacy Final Rule. One organization requested EPA provide 30 months from the completion of FER Part 2, because this would allow as much time as was granted under the 2015 CCR Rule ( i.e., 24 months), plus an additional six months to account for contractor backlogs.

EPA reviewed the information provided and is convinced that because owners or operators will be delineating CCRMU late into 2026 ( i.e., late into the FER process), the existing deadline does not provide sufficient time for facilities both (1) to design and install a groundwater monitoring system capable of meeting the standards at § 257.91 and (2) to collect and analyze the eight independent samples for each background and downgradient well, as required by § 257.94(b). EPA acknowledged in the Legacy Final Rule that the deadline for the groundwater monitoring requirements must account for the amount of time owners or operators need to locate CCRMU as part of the FER (89 FR 39063). Based on the amount of time typically needed to design and install a groundwater monitoring system and to collect and analyze the eight independent samples, and the information provided by commenters regarding the timeframe in which CCRMU will be delineated, EPA concludes that the existing CCRMU groundwater compliance deadline do not provide a sufficient amount of time to come into compliance. Nor do the existing deadlines adequately account for delays related to the shortage of qualified contractors. Therefore, EPA calculates that an extension of 15 months of the Legacy Final Rule deadline is necessary to provide sufficient time for owners or operators to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements. This 15-month extension will allow owners or operators of regulated CCRMU a total of 30 months from the completion of the FER Part 2 to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements. This is six months longer than was provided under the 2015 CCR Rule to mitigate impacts mentioned by commenters regarding the current labor shortages and backlogs experienced by third-parties necessary to accomplish tasks involved in complying with the groundwater monitoring requirements. Therefore, EPA is extending the deadlines for owners or operators of CCRMU to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements to no later than August 8, 2029. See revised §§ 257.90(b)(3) and 257.95(b)(1)(ii).

As explained in the Legacy Final Rule, the FER serves as the prerequisite for all other CCRMU requirements. See 89 FR 39060. Similarly, the groundwater monitoring requirements serve as the prerequisite for the closure and post-closure requirements so that owners or operators can incorporate information about groundwater quality, groundwater flows, seasonality impacts, and the migration of contaminants (if any) into units' closure and post-closure care plans. See 89 FR 39079-39080. Therefore, in this action, EPA is making conforming changes to the remaining CCRMU compliance deadlines. These conforming changes are shown below in table 1.

In the Legacy Final Rule, the deadline to establish a public CCR website is tied to the first reporting requirement. For owners or operators of active CCR facility or inactive facility with a legacy CCR surface impoundment, the first reporting requirement is the FER Part 1. See § 257.75(c)(1) and (4). Therefore, because this action is creating an option for FER Part 1 to be completed along with the FER Part 2, EPA is similarly providing owners and operators the option to establish the public CCR website specified in § 257.107 by no later than either February 9, 2026 or February 8, 2027 to correspond to when the owner or operator completes FER Part 1. See revised § 257.75(c)(4).

The design and installation of the groundwater monitoring system, development of the groundwater sampling and analysis program, and the initiation of the combined detection and assessment monitoring programs are prerequisites to completing the initial groundwater monitoring and corrective action report. Because the groundwater monitoring compliance deadlines have been extended by 15 months to August 8, 2029, EPA is extending the deadline to complete the initial groundwater monitoring and corrective action report to no later than January 31 of the next calendar year, January 31, 2030. See revised § 257.90(e).

As mentioned above, EPA concluded that the closure and post-closure care plans should be informed by groundwater monitoring data. Because the groundwater monitoring compliance deadlines have been extended by 15 months to August 8, 2029, EPA is extending the deadline to complete the written closure and post-closure care plans and the deadline to initiate closure by 15 months to February 8, 2030 and August 8, 2030, respectively. See revised §§ 257.101(f)(1), 257.102(b)(2)(iii), and 257.104(d)(2)(iii).

The EPA estimated the costs and benefits of this action in a Regulatory Economic Assessment (REA), which is available in the docket for this action.

The universe of facilities and units affected by the direct final rule consists of two categories. The first is composed of facilities with CCRMU. The REA identifies 195 CCRMU at 104 facilities. The second category is composed of CCRMU at “other active facilities,” (referred to as OAFUs in the Legacy Final Rule). The REA identifies 15 CCRMU at OAFUs. Most of these facilities correspond to NAICS code 221112.

The baseline costs of this action consist of all reporting and recordkeeping costs mandated by the Legacy Final Rule for facilities with CCRMU. The Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Legacy Final Rule estimated these costs to be an annualized $102-119 million when discounting at 3% and an annualized $144-173 million when discounting at 7%.

This direct final rule is expected to result in cost savings from time value of money impacts by delaying the compliance dates for reporting activities at CCRMU. The REA estimates annualized cost savings of approximately $2.97-$3.48 million per year when discounting at 3%, and annualized cost savings of approximately $9.43-$11.3 million per year when discounting at 7%.

Similarly, the direct final rule is expected to result in reductions in benefits associated with time value of money impacts from delaying the groundwater monitoring and closure requirements for CCRMU from the Legacy Final Rule. The REA estimates annualized reductions in benefits of approximately $0.18-$0.62 million per year when discounting at 3%, and annualized reductions in benefits of $0.38-$1.20 million per year when discounting at 7%.

Overall the REA estimates that this direct final rule will result in net annualized cost savings of $2.48-$3.63 million per year when discounting at 3%, and net annualized cost savings of $9.05-$10.1 million per year when discounting at 7%.

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 considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. An ICR covering the information collection activities contained in the existing Legacy Final Rule has been submitted for OMBs approval under the temporary OMB control number 2050-0231.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule relieves regulatory burden on the small entities subject to the rule. The rule relieves burden by establishing an additional option for owners or operators of CCRMU to comply with the FER Part 1 requirements and extending the deadline for owners and operators of CCRMU to comply with groundwater monitoring requirements. This delay affords all entities, including small entities, more time to comply, and reduces compliance costs by pushing them into the future. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

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

This action does not have federalism implications. 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. The rule relieves burden by establishing an additional option for owners or operators of CCRMU to comply with the FER Part 1 requirements and extending the deadline for owners and operators of CCRMU to comply with groundwater monitoring requirements. This rule does not impose any additional requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13045 directs federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The Department of the Interior's (Department) regulations implementing certain provisions of the Mining Claims Restoration Act of 1955, Public Law 84-359, 69 Stat. 797, are contained in 43 CFR subpart 3738. These regulations address bonding requirements for lands withdrawn for powersites. The regulations in § 3738.1 describe when a bond is required, and the nature of the bond to be provided. The regulations in § 3738.2 describe the actions the BLM will take if the locator fails to restore the surface of the lands, including forfeiting the bond provided in compliance with § 3738.1 to be used by the BLM to restore the surface. Upon reviewing these regulations, the BLM has determined that they should be rescinded as they are duplicative of the bonding requirements in 43 CFR 3809.500.

The Department has determined that this reason, independently and alone, justifies rescission of 43 CFR 3738.1 and 3738.2. The BLM has no interest in maintaining rules that are redundant.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551 through 559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when an agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. section 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary, because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the rescission of the rule and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the rescission of the rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rescission's underlying premise; or (2) serious unintended consequences of the rescission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612) 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). As the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final 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; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

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. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove an obsolete provision that is no longer used. Therefore, 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 result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under E.O. 12630. The rule rescinds an obsolete regulatory provision; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is therefore not required.

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

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Among other things, 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;

(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 Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under E.O. 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial, direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove unnecessary regulatory language.

This rule does not contain new or materially revised information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in E.O. 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Land Management amends 43 CFR part 3730 as follows:

The Department of the Interior's (Department) regulations governing mineral prospecting within National Forest System lands are contained in 43 CFR 3823.1(a) and (b). Paragraph (a) authorizes prospecting for minerals within National Forest System lands under the terms set out in the regulation. Paragraph (b) directs those persons wishing to conduct activities under paragraph (a) to review the regulations of the United States Forest Service applicable to the lands within which such activities would be undertaken. The Department is rescinding these regulations as they are unnecessary and duplicative of the regulations issued by the United States Forest Service that can be found at 36 CFR 228.15.

The Department has determined that this reason, independently and alone, justifies rescission of 43 CFR 3823.1. The Department has no interest in maintaining a rule that is needlessly duplicative of other existing regulations.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. section 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the rescission of the rule and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the rescission of the rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rescission's underlying premise; or (2) serious unintended consequences of the rescission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612) 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). As the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final 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; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

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. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove an obsolete provision that is no longer used. Therefore, 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 result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under E.O. 12630. The rule rescinds an obsolete regulatory provision; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is therefore not required.

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

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Among other things, 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;

(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 Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under E.O. 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial, direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove unnecessary regulatory language.

OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB Control Number 1004-0114. This rule does not impose any new or materially revised information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in E.O. 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Land Management amends 43 CFR part 3820 as follows:

On October 1, 2024, FRA published the Rule in the Federal Register amending 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 225.31, in accordance with section 22417 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), to create a standard process for investigators to use during accident and incident investigations conducted under that section. 1 This process was to be used to determine when it was appropriate to collect information and the appropriate method for gathering that information about an accident or incident under investigation from railroad carriers, contractors or employees of railroad carriers, or representatives of employees of railroad carriers, and others, as determined relevant by the Secretary. The process was also to be used to determine when it was appropriate to consult with railroad carriers, contractors or employees of railroad carriers, or representatives of employees of railroad carriers, and others, as determined relevant by the Secretary, for technical expertise on the facts of the accident or incident under investigation. See Public Law 117-58, section 22417, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 748.

The Rule generated two adverse, substantive comments. Accordingly, as described in more detail below, FRA has decided to withdraw the Rule.

FRA is withdrawing the Rule, which took effect on November 15, 2024. FRA received two adverse, substantive comments which opposed the Rule. There were no comments submitted in support of the Rule. 2

Commenters objecting to the Rule stated that the Rule was insufficient as it needed to be expanded to include the outside review of accidents/incidents by professionals, such as physicists or highly qualified industrial engineers, as independent reviews of findings.

Commenters also alleged that FRA's outreach to the Class I railroads was limited and insufficient, and nonexistent to short line railroads. As such, it was the position of the commenters that FRA did not account fully for how the Rule would affect the railroad industry in the following ways: (1) FRA's “catch-all” provision for determining which accidents trigger the information gathering and stakeholder consultation requirements is vague and fails to implement the IIJA mandate properly; (2) FRA's description of “stakeholders” fails to implement the IIJA mandate properly; (3) FRA fails to explain substantive regulatory changes in 49 CFR 225.31(a); (4) loopholes allow for information to be shared with third parties during an investigation; (5) it is unclear how FRA's web-based document sharing site will protect against the disclosure of confidential information; (6) there are no protections against post-investigation disclosures of confidential information; (7) the identity of a stakeholder should not be kept confidential from other stakeholders; (8) FRA's investigation policy would create untenable conflicts with NTSB practice in situations where NTSB and FRA conduct overlapping investigations; (9) FRA limits improperly the basis for restricting stakeholder access to an accident site; (10) FRA does not have the authority to grant a stakeholder “virtual” access to railroad property; (11) the investigation policy will result in undue delays in clearing accident sites; (12) FRA adopts an incident command model but fails to provide details on its structure and tasks; and (13) FRA underestimates the cost of compliance of the new regulation.

Given the extent of the commenters' substantive issues with the Rule, FRA is withdrawing the Rule.

FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), and DOT Order 2100.6B, Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking (Mar. 10, 2025). The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

FRA is amending its Accident/Incident Regulations, covering reporting, classification, and investigations, by withdrawing its regulation ( i.e., the Rule) for gathering information from and consulting with stakeholders during an accident/incident investigation. Through this withdrawal of the Rule, FRA is revising its accident investigation process by removing the changes made by the Rule that established procedures for stakeholder participation in investigation, including notifying stakeholders of an accident investigation; permitting the assistance of stakeholders in investigations; and allowing stakeholders to submit information to FRA to assist with the investigation.

FRA anticipates the primary benefit of withdrawing the Rule will be the ability to re-assess in light of concerns raised by commenters.

In the Rule, FRA estimated total costs of approximately $0.8 million (Present Value (PV)  3 in 2023 dollars, 7-percent) over the ten-year analysis. By withdrawing the Rule, FRA estimates this will now incur a cost savings. Table 1 displays the cost savings of withdrawing the Rule from the Accident/Incident regulations in 49 CFR part 225.

E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  5 Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 6

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This final rule is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore it would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 ((RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) and E.O. 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require an agency to prepare and to make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required when a rule is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking. FRA has determined that this rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this rule.

There are no new or additional information collection requirements associated with this withdrawal. Therefore, FRA is not required to provide an estimate of a public reporting burden in this document.

FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1C, FRA has determined that this rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4), “[p]lanning and administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as: [p]romulgation of rules, regulations, and directives.” This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

This withdrawal will not have a substantial 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. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

This withdrawal will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an expenditure.

E.O. 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). FRA has evaluated this withdrawal in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this withdrawal is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

FRA has evaluated this withdrawal in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, (Nov. 6, 2000). The withdrawal would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and would not preempt Tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This withdrawal is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

In consideration of the foregoing, FRA amends 49 CFR part 225 as follows:

Please refer to the proposed rule to delist the Roanoke logperch published on April 2, 2024 (89 FR 22649), for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.

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

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in listing and recovery actions under the Act ( https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf ), we solicited independent scientific review of the information contained in the Roanoke logperch SSA report. As discussed in the proposed rule, we sent the SSA report to nine independent peer reviewers and received three responses. The peer reviews can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. In preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule. A summary of the peer review comments and our responses can be found in the proposed rule (89 FR 22649; April 2, 2024).

In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered all public comments received during the comment period, and we make no substantive changes from the April 2, 2024, proposed rule (89 FR 22649).

In the proposed rule published on April 2, 2024 (89 FR 22649), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by June 3, 2024. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribal entities, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published in the Roanoke Times on April 12, 2024, and in the Greensboro News on April 17, 2024. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information received during comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.

(1) Comment: The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission expressed their continued commitment to propagation, field survey, and eDNA work in the Dan River basin. However, they expressed concern about the availability of Federal funding mechanisms to support the post-delisting monitoring plan for Roanoke logperch.

Our response: The Service appreciates the continued commitment of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to Roanoke logperch conservation. There are no specific Federal funds to support post-delisting monitoring plans; however, funding from a wide variety of sources may be used to support this work.

(2) Comment: Multiple comments were received stating that the Service failed to consider the impacts of the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) project on the species, that the pipeline threatened the species, that we needed to reassess the populations based on the commenters' observations of impacts they reported to be from the MVP project, or that we needed to incorporate impacts from the MVP project into model simulations specifically.

Our response: The impacts of the MVP project, such as sedimentation and vegetation removal, on the recovery of the Roanoke logperch were assessed in the jeopardy analysis of the Service's biological opinion for the MVP (Service, 2023, p. 52) which included sedimentation modeling, and in the SSA (Service 2022a, pp. 27-28). The Service's jeopardy analysis concluded that the MVP project is not anticipated to reduce appreciably the suitable habitat available for recovery or the recovery potential for the species. Additionally, one commenter requesting reassessment based on their observations did not provide adequate information to allow us to respond specifically to the data available in the vicinity of their location.

(3) Comment: One commenter stated that they believe there was a perceived increase in Roanoke logperch distribution and abundance due to increases in our ability to sample these ecosystems.

Our response: As stated in the SSA report, “The known geographic distribution of RLP [Roanoke logperch] has expanded dramatically over time, from 4 streams by the end of the 1940s to 14 streams by the time of its ESA [the Act] listing in 1989 to 31 streams currently. Because survey effort also increased dramatically over this time, we cannot determine whether RLP's [Roanoke logperch's] range increased because of true range expansion via dispersal, new discovery of existing but undiscovered populations, or both” (Service 2022a, p. 1). The species' present-day distribution was evaluated in making our determination that the Roanoke logperch is recovered and no longer needs protections provided by the Act. Nevertheless, the listing of the species spurred not only greater survey effort (an action identified in the 1992 recovery plan (Service 1992, pp. 12-13)). but also increased habitat restoration—inextricably linking these efforts to recovery.

(4) Comment: Two commenters mentioned dams as an obstacle to Roanoke logperch recovery, including one commenter who mentioned the lack of dam removals.

Our response: Dams are known to be a threat to Roanoke logperch, and the presumed effects to Roanoke logperch from these barriers were analyzed in the SSA report and evaluated in determining if the species is recovered. Multiple dams have been removed within the range of the Roanoke logperch between 2009 and 2020, as detailed in table 4 (p. 25) and figure 6 (p. 24) in the SSA report. Some dams present within the range of the Roanoke logperch provide one-way passage downstream for the species.

(5) Comment: One commenter stated that they disagreed with the delisting, as they believe the Roanoke logperch still faces significant conservation challenges pertaining to the quality and connectivity of the habitat and the resiliency of the reproductive population.

Our response: The threats facing the Roanoke logperch identified in the SSA report were evaluated in determining the species is recovered. It is not necessary for all threats to a species to be eliminated to delist a species; a determination of whether a species should be delisted is made solely on the question of whether it meets the Act's definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” We have determined that Roanoke logperch no longer meets the definition of a threatened or endangered species.

(6) Comment: One commenter stated that all age classes of Roanoke logperch are likely to be harmed by unpredictable stream conditions resulting from climate change impacts.

Our response: Effects of climate change on the Roanoke logperch were evaluated in the SSA report in the discussion of future scenarios (Service 2022a, pp. 41-60). Effects of climate change, along with impacts to the species from other threats, were evaluated in determining that the species is recovered. The effects evaluated include altered hydrology and sediment delivery by increased flood magnitudes and flow variability in general, reduced flow predictability, decreased summer/fall base flows, and increased erosion and runoff of sediment, potentially reducing habitat suitability for all age-classes of RLP and increasing direct mortality of vulnerable juveniles during spring floods. As noted above, it is not necessary for all threats to a species to be removed for a species to be recovered under the Act.

(7) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that livestock fences and conservation easements are not particularly impactful, and solutions need to be applied to urban and agricultural centers where runoff and sediment originate.

Our response: The Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has completed extensive work in cooperation with agricultural landowners to install livestock fencing and reestablish riparian buffers on their properties. This program has made improvements in habitat quality along stretches of rivers and tributaries that are occupied by Roanoke logperch. We agree that additional efforts to minimize impacts from non-point source pollution would continue to benefit the Roanoke logperch.

(8) Comment: One commenter stated that existing regulatory mechanisms are insufficient to safeguard the Roanoke logperch's habitat and that it is disingenuous to assert that monitoring and augmentation will offset the ongoing threats to the species. They also stated that existing regulatory mechanisms did not prevent habitat degradation resulting from the MVP project.

Our response: As discussed in the SSA report, “Over time, [Roanoke logperch] has likely benefitted from the protections and resources provided by State and Federal laws and regulations” (Service 2022a, p. 29). It is not necessary for all threats to a species, including those to the species' habitat, to be eliminated for a species to be considered as recovered under the Act. Existing regulatory mechanisms are not designed to prevent all habitat impacts from affecting listed species. Instead, impacts to habitat are avoided and minimized specific to the proposed action being evaluated. Roanoke logperch habitat impacts resulting from the MVP project were analyzed and addressed in the 2023 biological opinion issued by the Service. Additionally, the intent of monitoring is not to offset threats to the Roanoke logperch but instead to help track the status of the species following delisting. Likewise, as discussed below ( Conservation Efforts: Management and Restoration section), augmentation or reintroduction is intended to bolster resiliency by increasing vital rates, total population size, and genetic diversity. The Service, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Conservation Fisheries, Inc., and the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources have partnered since 2019 to propagate Roanoke logperch and reintroduce them to areas where they occurred historically. Reintroduction was conducted in the Upper Mayo River in Rockingham County, NC in October 2023 and November 2024 (394 fish total) and monitoring began in June 2024 (CFI 2024, pp. 1-9; NCWRC 2023, pp. 1-5).

(9) Comment: One commenter felt that in making a delisting decision, the Service relied too heavily on individual States keeping the species on their State endangered species lists.

Our response: Existing regulatory mechanisms are taken into account when considering a species' current condition (Service 2022a, pp. 29-30), but they are not a singular driver of the decision to delist the Roanoke logperch. The species' future viability is assessed using the 3Rs (resiliency, representation, and redundancy, see Analytical Framework, below). In assessing future viability of the species, the SSA looked at (1) watershed urbanization, (2) climate change, (3) population restoration via propagation, augmentation, reintroduction, translocation, and introduction (PARTI), and (4) connectivity restoration via barrier removal (Service 2022a, p. 41).

A thorough review of the biological information on the Roanoke logperch, including taxonomy, life history, ecology, and conservation activities, as well as threats facing the species and its habitat, is presented in our SSA report (Service 2022a, entire), which is available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0181. Please refer to the SSA report for additional discussion and background information.

The Roanoke logperch is a large-bodied member of the darters (Etheostomatinae), a diverse subfamily of freshwater fishes in the perch family (Percidae) endemic to the Roanoke, Dan, and Chowan River basins in Virginia and North Carolina. The Roanoke logperch occupies medium to large warm-water streams and rivers of moderate gradient and silt-free substrates (Service 1992, p. 3). Every major riverine habitat with unembedded stream substrates with low silt cover is exploited by the Roanoke logperch during different phases of life history and season (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994, p. 786).

The overwhelming majority of our knowledge on the Roanoke logperch's biology and habitat needs is based on research conducted in the upper Roanoke River (see Burkhead 1983, entire; Roberts and Angermeier 2006, entire) and comparative studies of Roanoke logperch in the Nottaway River (see Rosenberger and Angermeier 2003, entire). Roanoke logperch feed and spawn over clean gravel, pebble, and cobble substrates in large creeks to medium rivers. They spawn in spring, depositing eggs on the substrate with no subsequent parental care. Newly hatched larvae drift downstream on river currents until they settle out in calm backwaters and pool margins. By their first fall, juveniles begin shifting into the deeper, main-channel habitats occupied by older juveniles and adults. Individuals mature by age 2-3 and live up to 6.5 years. Adults appear to undertake extensive upstream spawning migrations, followed by cumulatively downstream migration over the rest of the fish's lifespan.

All age classes of Roanoke logperch are intolerant of heavy silt cover and embeddedness, both because silt smothers eggs and because the species feeds primarily by flipping over unembedded substrate particles with its snout. The species is more often found in habitats with silt-free substrate, forested watersheds, and large enough stream size to complete its life history. It avoids heavily silted runs and pools, very small creeks, hydrologically unstable tailwaters below dams, and lentic lakes and reservoirs.

As detailed in the 2022 5-year review (Service 2022b, entire), the known geographic distribution of the Roanoke logperch has expanded since the species was listed in 1989. The Roanoke logperch was first collected in the 1880s. State databases contain data collected only since 1940, resulting in an information gap from 1890 to 1940. However, since 1940, the number of streams where the Roanoke logperch has been observed has increased from 4 streams in the 1940s, to 14 streams at the time of listing in 1989, to 31 streams in 2019. In terms of river basins, the Roanoke logperch was known in Virginia from the Roanoke basin in the 1880s and the Chowan basin in the 1940s. The first Roanoke logperch location (Town Creek) in the Dan basin was in the 1970s in Virginia, then the upper Smith River in the 1980s. In the 1990s and 2000s, observations in the Dan basin expanded, including into North Carolina. The first observation of Roanoke logperch in North Carolina was in the Dan River in 2007. No population extirpations are known.

The U.S. Geological Survey delineates watersheds using a nationwide system based on surface hydrologic features. This system divides the country into six levels of classification: regions, subregions, basins, subbasins, watersheds, and sub-watersheds. A hierarchical hydrologic unit code (HUC) is used to identify any hydrologic area. The HUC system includes two additional digits for each classification level. Therefore, each hydrologic unit is assigned a 2-digit to 12-digit number that uniquely identifies each of the six levels of classification within six 2-digit fields. The system includes 22 regions (2-digit), 245 subregions (4-digit), 405 basins (6-digit), ~2,400 subbasins (8-digit), ~19,000 watersheds (10-digit), and ~105,000 subwatersheds (12-digit).

The number of 12-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUCs, also known as watersheds) in which the Roanoke logperch has been observed has increased from a total of 27 HUCs in 1989 to 55 HUCs in 2019. A detailed description of the Roanoke logperch's geographic distribution is presented in section 2.3 of the SSA report (Service 2022a, pp. 14-19).

Methodologies for identifying what constitutes a population have varied; therefore, our analysis uses management units (MUs) to assess the current condition and potential future conditions of the species. At the smallest spatial grain, we define an MU as a group of individuals occupying a discrete, local geographic area in which demographic exchange is common and habitat conditions are relatively homogeneous. At a larger grain, we define a metapopulation as a group of MUs located in an evolutionarily similar setting and in close-enough proximity that some dispersal and gene flow among MUs within that metapopulation likely has occurred in recent ecological time, at least prior to anthropogenic habitat alteration. The species as a whole is the sum of all metapopulations (Service 2022a, p. 20).

There are four identified Roanoke logperch metapopulations: Roanoke Mountain, Roanoke Piedmont, Dan, and Chowan. A total of 18 MUs were delineated from these metapopulations. Eleven of these MUs are currently occupied (Upper Roanoke, Pigg, Goose, Otter, Middle Roanoke, Upper Smith, Middle Smith, Lower Smith, Lower Mayo, Middle Dan, Nottoway) and 7 are currently unoccupied (Blackwater, Falling, Upper Mayo, Upper Dan, Lower Dan, Banister, Meherrin) (see table 1 below; Service 2022a, p. 23). For potential future introductions, currently unoccupied MUs were delineated in waterways deemed good candidates for future populations based on suitable habitat conditions. Currently unoccupied “potential” MUs were not used in assessing current condition. However, the possibility for these potential MUs to become occupied was considered for analysis of future condition. Additional details on past delineation of populations and spatial associations of the MUs are presented in section 3.2 of the SSA report (Service 2022a, pp. 20-25). We provide a summary of the species' current and future conditions under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, below.

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

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

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

In 1992, the objectives of the Roanoke logperch recovery plan were to first reclassify the species from endangered to threatened, then to delist the species (Service 1992, pp. 12-13). The recovery plan states that reclassification to threatened would be initiated when:

(1) Populations of Roanoke logperch are shown to be stable or expanding and reproducing (as evidenced by sustained recruitment) in each of the following river systems: Upper Roanoke River, Pigg River, Smith River, and Nottoway River. Achievement of this criterion will be determined by population monitoring over at least a 10-year period. The overall current resiliency is highest in these river systems based on Roanoke logperch population density and effective population size, habitat quality, and genetic conditions (Service 2022a, pp. 38-40); and

(2) Each of the known populations is protected from present and foreseeable threats that may interfere with the species' survival.

Additionally, the 1992 Roanoke logperch recovery plan states that delisting would be considered when, in addition to meeting the two criteria above, habitat improvement measures have been developed and successfully implemented, as evidenced by a sustained increase in Roanoke logperch population size and/or length of river reach inhabited within the upper Roanoke River drainage and a similar increase in at least two of the other three Roanoke logperch populations (Pigg River, Smith River, or Nottoway River).

As indicated in the most recent 5-year review (Service 2022b, entire), the current recovery plan for the species is 30 years old, thus requiring a reexamination of the adequacy of recovery criteria. The reclassification and delisting criteria in the 1992 plan do not mention North Carolina populations because Roanoke logperch were not known to occur in that State at that time. Additionally, benchmarks in the plan criteria focus on the health and protection of Roanoke logperch populations; however, identifying what constitutes a population is unclear. For example, the recovery plan, 2007 5-year status review, and associated literature used different methods to identify Roanoke logperch populations. Due to the outdated nature of this recovery plan, we rely on the information on the current and future conditions presented in the SSA report (Service 2022a, entire) to inform the status determination for the species. See Summary of Biological Status and Threats, below, for a discussion of the status of and threats to this species.

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply when designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 23919). This final rule is now in effect and is incorporated into the current regulations. Our analysis for this decision applied our current regulations. Given that we proposed delisting this species under our prior regulations (revised in 2019), we have also undertaken an analysis of whether the decision would be different if we had continued to apply the 2019 regulations, and we concluded that the decision would be the same. The analyses under both the regulations currently in effect and the 2019 regulations are available on https://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

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

(C) Disease or predation;

(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

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

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

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

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

The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; “M- Opinion,” available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf ). The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter, the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best scientific and commercial data available and taking into account considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can make reasonably reliable predictions. “Reliable” does not mean “certain”; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2023-0181 on https://www.regulations.gov.

In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the SSA report (Service 2022a, entire) and 5-year review (Service 2022b, entire) document our comprehensive biological status review for the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species.

The following is a summary of this status review and the best scientific and commercial data available gathered since that time that have informed this decision.

We identified six factors that may influence Roanoke logperch viability: fine sediment deposition (Factor A), chronic chemical pollution (Factor A), dams and other barriers (Factor A), climate change (Factor E), management/restoration activities aimed at improving habitat quality (Factor A), and existing legal and regulatory mechanisms (Factor D). These factors align with many of the threats discussed in the 2007 5-year review: large dams and reservoirs, small dams/barriers, channelization that will lead to increased sedimentation, agricultural and silvicultural activities (non-point source pollution in the form of fine sediment), and toxic spills (Service 2007b, entire). An additional threat to the Roanoke logperch identified since the 2007 5-year review is changing climate. Climate change is anticipated to affect precipitation, runoff patterns, and stream hydrology, and may introduce fine sediment into Roanoke logperch habitat (Service 2022a, p. 29). The complex relationship between the numerous environmental and anthropogenic factors and their influence on the habitat conditions and ultimately on the condition of the Roanoke logperch is presented in more detail in the SSA report (see figure 7 in Service 2022a, p. 33). The Service is not aware of any evidence that overutilization, competition, predation, disease, or other manmade factors are significant threats to the Roanoke logperch.

Fine sediment is produced through erosion and enters streams and rivers through runoff, especially during storm events (Waters 1995, entire). A variety of human activities accelerate erosion and thereby increase sediment inputs to streams, but urbanization and agriculture are the two most prominent of these activities in the Roanoke logperch's range.

Fine sediments originating from the watershed or channel of a stream remain suspended until they reach a low-velocity area and deposit on the stream substrate. Although suspended sediment can reduce feeding efficiency for a sight feeder like the Roanoke logperch, it likely has a greater negative impact once it deposits on the stream bottom. Deposition of fine sediments like silt and clay on the stream substrate likely reduces the fitness and survival of Roanoke logperch adults and the survival and recruitment of age-0 juveniles. Roanoke logperch are invertivores that feed almost exclusively on the stream bottom; they require substrate particles (for example, pebbles, leaves, sticks) to be mostly unembedded by fine sediment so that they can flip over these particles and access food underneath. Heavily embedded substrates contain lower benthic macroinvertebrate densities and fewer benthic invertivorous fishes (Berkman and Rabeni 1987, entire).

Although uninvestigated to date, we assume that as deposition and embeddedness increase, Roanoke logperch food intake at all life stages will decrease and individual growth and survival rates will decrease. Moreover, silt coverage could smother eggs and reduce their hatching rate, particularly for a gravel spawner like the Roanoke logperch (Berkman and Rabeni 1987, entire). Reduced egg-to-larva survival, along with reduced benthic feeding efficiency for age-0 juveniles, could translate to overall lower recruitment rates for Roanoke logperch populations. However, negative impacts from deposition of fine sediments on Roanoke logperch growth, recruitment, and survival have not been quantified or shown to have population-level effects.

By definition, water pollution is anthropogenic in origin and alters the chemical composition of a receiving waterbody (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2022, entire). Pollutants include organic nutrients such as fertilizer, livestock manure, and human sewage effluent, along with myriad natural and synthetic chemicals including heavy metals, pesticides, cleaners, solvents, pharmaceuticals, and petroleum products, among others.

The population dynamics of the Roanoke logperch are particularly sensitive to acute pollution events that cause substantial one-time reductions in population size (Roberts et al. 2016a, entire). In the upper Roanoke River watershed, seven pollution events resulting in Roanoke logperch mortality occurred over a 35-year period, an average of once every 5 years. The most recent spill event with a known mortality occurred in 2007. These events involved a variety of different pollutants and affected anywhere from 2 to 19 kilometers (km) (1.2 to 11.8 miles (mi)) of river. Such catastrophic events presumably act by temporarily reducing survival of all age classes until the chemical has dissipated, which may take up to a year (Ensign et al. 1997, entire). However, if fish kills occur frequently enough, affect a large enough area, or happen to an already small population, they could potentially threaten the viability of an entire population.

Like fine sediment, water pollution emanates from a variety of sources, including urban, mining, or agricultural runoff, and transportation of chemicals by road, rail, or pipeline. Notably, some fish-kill events impacting the Roanoke logperch stemmed from nonurban causes, such as a liquid manure spill in 1991 and a golf course fungicide spill in 2007 (Roberts et al. 2016a, entire) (table 2, below).

In general, we expect the risk of a pollution event to be higher in a watershed with greater urbanization, because with urbanization we expect a greater concentration of manufacturing chemicals, industrial and municipal chemical effluents, and chemical transportation via roads, rails, and pipelines. Thus, we expect urbanization to be a primary indicator of the potential risk of pollution events impacting Roanoke logperch populations.

European settlers began constructing milldams and other low-head dams on rivers upon arrival to the Atlantic States (Walter and Merritts 2008, entire). These barriers may have affected connectivity and habitat conditions for the Roanoke logperch historically, but we lack distribution and abundance data for the Roanoke logperch before 1940. Between the 1920s and 1960s, large hydroelectric dams were installed on several large rivers in the Roanoke logperch's range. Although none of these dams were equipped with fish passage technologies, some are short enough in height and have a modest-enough spillway drop that they may allow for one-way fish movement (from upstream to downstream) over the spillway. For example, one study found that Martinsville Dam on the Smith River does not form a genetic population boundary between Roanoke logperch upstream and downstream of the dam, so the study's authors hypothesized that the dam allows one-way gene flow (Roberts et al. 2013, entire).

However, many of the dams present in the Roanoke, Dan, and Chowan River basins are much larger than the Martinsville Dam, forming an extensive impoundment that would not be suitable habitat for the species, and each of these larger dams probably constitutes a complete two-way barrier to Roanoke logperch movement. Roanoke logperch have a migratory life history and, in the absence of movement barriers, utilize multiple sections of a watershed over a lifetime. Although genetic data indicate that Roanoke logperch populations currently have sharp, discrete boundaries (Roberts et al. 2013, entire), these boundaries mostly coincide with dams. Before construction of these dams, population structure might have been more continuous, with more frequent dispersal occurring among now-disconnected streams (Burkhead 1983, entire). Thus, the barrier effect created by dams has potentially fragmented a once more-continuous range into a series of geographically smaller, more isolated populations. This fragmentation reduces resiliency because a declining population cannot be naturally demographically or genetically “rescued” by another population. However, in many cases, barrier removal, introduction of fish passage technology, and reintroduction and translocation efforts can increase the effective area of adjacent populations and allow increased dispersal among populations, thereby increasing population resiliency (Gido et al. 2016, entire).

In addition to movement barriers, dams can create habitat degradation and loss for Roanoke logperch. Impoundments upstream of dams convert formerly riverine, potentially suitable habitat to lacustrine habitat (relating to or associated with lakes) that is not suitable for Roanoke logperch. Although the species has been observed occasionally in Smith Mountain Lake and Leesville Reservoir, these occurrences have been interpreted as waifs attempting dispersal through the reservoirs, rather than resident fish (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994, p. 787).

Habitat conditions downstream of hydroelectric dams may be unsuitable for Roanoke logperch as well. For example, hydro-peaking discharges ( i.e., the practice of releasing pulses of water to increase power production) from Leesville Dam have rendered habitat conditions immediately downstream in the middle Roanoke River unstable and relatively poor for Roanoke logperch. Population density at this MU is relatively low (Smith 2011, pers. comm.). The practice of hydro-peaking, combined with a cold hypolimnetic release ( i.e., release of water that lies below the thermocline and is perpetually cold), has likewise rendered the middle Smith River immediately downstream from Philpott Dam unsuitable for Roanoke logperch. Roanoke logperch are apparently absent from this reach (Krause et al. 2005, entire). The cold, unsuitable tailwater acts as a movement barrier between Town Creek, an occupied tributary that flows into the unoccupied reach, and the occupied section of middle Smith River located 4 km (2.5 mi) downstream (Roberts et al. 2013, p. 2060). The hypolimnetic pulsed release from Philpott dam produces year-round cold water temperatures (~46.4 °F) that apparently exclude Roanoke logperch from the mainstem Smith River from the dam to about 4 km downstream of the mouth of Town Creek (Krause, Newcomb and Orth, 2005). This theoretically would deter dispersal between Town Creek and Smith River during all but the coldest months, when stream temperatures are similar across these reaches.

Changes to the climate of the Roanoke logperch's geographic range can affect precipitation, runoff patterns, and stream hydrology in ways that negatively affect the species' vital rates and resiliency. In the coming decades, the changes to the climate within the Roanoke logperch's range is expected to average 5 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 to 4.4 degrees Celsius) warmer with around 1 more inch (2.5 centimeters) of rain per year (see section 4.2.1 of SSA report (Service 2022a, pp. 50-53)). Although a modest increase in total rainfall, this rain is expected to come in less predictable, less frequent, more intense storm events (Ingram et al. 2013, entire; Burt et al. 2016, entire). Increased air temperature has the potential to increase evapotranspiration rates, decrease groundwater recharge into streams, and reduce the magnitude of summer baseflows (Ingram et al. 2013, entire; Lynch et al. 2016, pp. 349-350). Increased storm intensity may likewise reduce summer baseflows by raising the runoff to infiltration ratio. More irregular but intense rainfall means “flashier” stream flows overall, with higher high flows, lower low flows, and steeper rising and falling limbs of the hydrograph, a situation exacerbated by urbanization and watershed imperviousness (Roy et al. 2010, entire). Stronger storm events also increase the probability that fine sediment will be mobilized in runoff and carried into streams.

Relationships between hydrology and the Roanoke logperch's habitat suitability or vital rates have not been thoroughly investigated. However, in the upper Roanoke River, one study found that age-0 logperch abundance in the fall of their first year was negatively related to the standard deviation of stream flows during the spring (April-June) of that year (Roberts and Angermeier 2007, p. 43). Highly variable flows may directly increase mortality of vulnerable larvae and small juveniles. They also may reduce habitat quality and availability. Age-0 Roanoke logperch have very specific habitat needs during their first summer, requiring unembedded, shallow, and very low-velocity microhabitats, often in the margins of pools (Roberts and Angermeier 2006, p. 4). These microhabitat conditions change rapidly with stream flows; the drying of shallow areas forces Roanoke logperch into deeper areas where they are more vulnerable to aquatic predators, while elevated flows increase velocity beyond the swimming abilities of small fish. Given that storm intensity and stream flashiness are expected to increase, we predict that it may be more difficult for age-0 Roanoke logperch to locate and track suitable microhabitat configurations, resulting in reduced survival and recruitment. Further, reduced baseflow magnitude may crowd adult Roanoke logperch into smaller areas of suitable habitat within riffle-runs, resulting in increased competition for resources, and potentially reduced fitness and survival of adults. Additionally, the higher erosion and sediment transport rates likely to result from predicted greater storm intensity could negatively affect growth, recruitment, and survival of Roanoke logperch.

Three types of restoration activities have positively benefited Roanoke logperch habitat and population conditions to date: (1) habitat restoration, (2) habitat connectivity restoration, and (3) population restoration. Habitat restoration activities for the Roanoke logperch primarily seek to reduce erosion potential and fine sediment inputs to streams. Projects include reestablishing the riparian zone, fencing livestock out of streams, and placing lands in conservation easements to prevent deforestation. The end goal of all these projects is to reduce new inputs of fine sediment into Roanoke logperch habitats. These activities have occurred, and as discussed below, we expect them to continue in watersheds harboring Roanoke logperch, regardless of the Federal listing status of the species.

Unfortunately, there is no efficient or cost-effective way to remove existing deposited sediment, which has accumulated in some cases over the course of centuries and can be removed only very gradually through downstream transport during flushing flow events (Walter and Merritts 2008, entire). Since the positive effects of Roanoke logperch habitat restoration may not be apparent for decades, the near-term resiliency of Roanoke logperch populations is not as strongly affected by these management activities as by connectivity and population restoration activities.

Habitat connectivity restoration involves the removal of, or passage over, barriers to Roanoke logperch movement in stream reaches, most notably dams. Multiple dams have been removed within the species' range in recent decades, including Wasena Dam on the upper Roanoke River near Roanoke, Virginia, in 2009; Veteran's Park Dam on the Pigg River near Rocky Mount, Virginia, in 2013; and Rocky Mount Power Dam on the Pigg River near Rocky Mount, Virginia, in 2016. Additionally, fish passages were designed and installed for Roanoke logperch past the Lindsey Bridge Dam on the Dan River near Madison, North Carolina, in 2020. Removal of additional dams is plausible, given the current trend toward dam removal in the eastern United States (Bellmore et al. 2017, entire). As stated previously, barrier removal and passage increase the effective area of adjacent populations and allow increased dispersal among populations, both of which increase population resiliency (Gido et al. 2016, entire).

Population restoration involves the intentional anthropogenic movement of fish across movement barriers they otherwise would be unable to cross. The individual fish being stocked could be translocated wild fish or propagules produced in a hatchery. Fish can be stocked into currently occupied habitat to augment the demographic or genetic diversity of that population, reintroduced into a previously occupied habitat that is no longer occupied, or introduced into a habitat that has never been occupied by the species. Augmentation is intended to bolster resiliency by increasing vital rates, total population size, and genetic diversity, whereas introduction and reintroduction are intended to bolster redundancy by increasing the number of populations on the landscape.

Collectively, propagation, augmentation, reintroduction, translocation, and introduction (hereafter PARTI) form a suite of interrelated population restoration tactics that have been successfully used in the recovery of a variety of imperiled fish species (Minckley et al. 2003, entire; Vrijenhoek 1996, entire; Yamamoto et al. 2006, entire). As of 2023, PARTI activities conducted by State, Federal, and nonprofit agencies are beginning for the Roanoke logperch; propagation procedures have been established (Ruble et al. 2009, entire; Ruble et al. 2010, entire), a decision document is in place to provide a scientific basis to PARTI decisions for the Roanoke logperch (Roberts 2018, entire), an online decision-support tool has been developed to guide hatchery and PARTI activities (Gibson 2022, entire), and a Statewide aquatic species safe harbor program in North Carolina will enable the use of PARTI tactics for the continued recovery of Roanoke logperch (see 87 FR 51698; August 23, 2022). As such, there is strong momentum to incorporate PARTI into recovery actions for the Roanoke logperch in the future. As discussed further below, regardless of the Federal listing status of the Roanoke logperch, we expect the States of Virginia and North Carolina to continue to prioritize Roanoke logperch population restoration in the future, as they do with other State-listed fishes and freshwater mussels.

Over time, the Roanoke logperch has benefited from the protections and resources provided by State and Federal laws and regulations. The species has been listed as an endangered species under the Act since 1989. Federal listing status has affected the course of large proposed and completed projects within the geographic range of the species. For example, construction plans for the Roanoke River flood reduction project were adjusted to reduce instream construction traffic, minimize silt runoff, and closely monitor water quality and Roanoke logperch population levels, to minimize incidental take of the species (Roberts et al. 2016c, entire). Coordination for this project spanned multiple years, and a final biological opinion was issued by the Service in 2005. Time-of-year restrictions on construction projects during the species' spawning window (March 15-June 30), recommended by both State and Federal agencies, have reduced streambed and floodplain disturbance and sediment loading during this key time in the species' lifecycle. Federal status also has allowed access to funding mechanisms available only for use on federally listed species, including the funds provided under section 6 of the Act. These funds have been used to restore riparian habitats to reduce sediment inputs, remove barriers to Roanoke logperch movement, and fund a range of research studies that have advanced understanding of the species' basic biology ( e.g., Rosenberger and Angermeier 2003, entire), distribution and abundance ( e.g., Roberts 2012b, entire), and genetics and evolution ( e.g., Roberts et al. 2013, entire).

In our SSA analysis, we did not consider protections, funding, or other benefits of listed status, including any other Federal, State, or local protections or benefits arising solely as a result of the species being listed under the Act when assessing risks to the Roanoke logperch. Rather, we consider only non-Act-related regulatory mechanisms and restoration activities that are existing or that we are reasonably confident will occur in the future regardless of the species' Federal listing status, such as State-level protection and population management, habitat restoration, and dam removal and passage.

The Roanoke logperch has been listed as endangered by Virginia since 1989, and by North Carolina since its discovery in that State in 2007. The species is given high priority in both States' wildlife action plans, allowing access to funding mechanisms such as State wildlife grants. As with the Act's section 6 funds, State wildlife grants have been used to restore riparian habitats, remove barriers, and fund research studies. These State listings are independent of the species' Federal status. There is no reason to expect a change in Federal status would be followed by the States, both of which are currently increasing Roanoke logperch propagation and translocation capacity. Thus, we expect State-level emphasis on protections and population restoration to continue into the future, regardless of the species' Federal status. Furthermore, there is considerable interest in dam removal in the eastern United States for human safety, fish passage restoration, and river channel restoration. We, therefore, expect removal of dams and other barriers to continue within the range of the Roanoke logperch, regardless of the species' Federal status.

In addition to benefiting from the Act and State-level listings, the Roanoke logperch and other stream fishes benefit from the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ). The CWA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting system regulates point sources of water pollution and has reduced some of the most chronic chemical pollution impacts of the early- to mid-20th century. Although controlling non-point source pollution—in particular, runoff of fine sediment, nutrients, and other contaminants—has been more difficult, CWA provisions such as total maximum daily load standards, which States are required to develop and achieve, have helped spur watershed-level management plans aimed at stemming pollutants potentially harmful to the Roanoke logperch, such as nutrients and sediment.

No previous research has directly quantified relationships between the threats to the species and the Roanoke logperch's vital rates, so in assessing current and future conditions, we based our assumptions about the nature of these relationships on a combination of ecological theory, expert judgment, and simulation models (Service 2022a, p. 26). Effects from specific threats such as fine sediment deposition, chemical pollution, dams and other barriers, and climate change are represented in the models but are not explicitly attributed to each threat.

Considering the biology of the species and key factors influencing its current condition, we assessed the current resiliency of occupied Roanoke logperch MUs (see table 1, above, for a list of MUs) based on indices of population density, genetically effective population size, habitat quality, and geographic range complexity. An overall index of current MU resiliency that combines this information is available in the SSA report (see section 3.4 of SSA report (Service 2022a, pp. 34-37)). In summary:

• Higher population density is indicative of a more highly productive habitat, and therefore reflects a population with higher resiliency since the habitat is able to support the needs of the species at a more concentrated scale.

• An important component of resiliency is being able to resist the influence of inbreeding depression on individual fitness, and ultimately, being able to adapt to changing future conditions. A larger value for genetically effective population size is needed over the long term (dozens to hundreds of generations) to maintain adaptive variation in the face of genetic drift; therefore, a higher value is indicative of higher resiliency in a population.

• Current habitat quality was qualitatively assigned as an aggregate assessment of that habitat's ability to support Roanoke logperch population growth, and we considered MUs with high habitat quality to have highest resiliency. Additionally, populations are less likely to become extirpated when they are widely distributed across complex and diverse habitats. Accordingly, having more stream segments is indicative of more refugia and protection from impacts from negative events, and therefore indicative of higher resiliency.

MUs were given scores of low, intermediate, or high for each of the above indices, and then an overall index was calculated. The overall index was the sum of the high scores (max of 4) minus the sum of the low scores (max of 4), plus 3 (to scale the final index to have a minimum of one). Any MU with an overall score equal to or greater than 5 exhibited at least three “high” indices, so we considered these MUs to have highest resiliency. In contrast, any MU with an overall score of 1 exhibited at least two “low” indices and no “high” indices, so we considered these MUs to have the lowest resiliency. MUs with scores of 2-4 were considered intermediately resilient. The overall resiliency index for current condition is highest in the Upper Roanoke, Pigg, Upper Smith, Middle Dan, and Nottoway MUs, and is either high or intermediate in 9 of the 11 currently occupied MUs (Service 2022a, p. 40).

We used MU resiliency to further assess redundancy and representation at the metapopulation and species levels. For each metapopulation, a redundancy index was calculated, with the assumption that each MU's contribution to redundancy is a function of both the resiliency and the geographic complexity of that MU (Service 2022a, pp. 36-37). The overall current redundancy score is highest in the Dan metapopulation, followed by the Roanoke Mountain and Chowan metapopulations, and is intermediate in the Roanoke Piedmont metapopulation; therefore, overall redundancy is considered intermediate to high across all four metapopulations.

Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions over time. By maximizing representation, a species' adaptive capacity to face unpredictable future changes to its environment is also maximized. Given that all four metapopulations, which are combinations of ecoregion and basin, within the known range of the Roanoke logperch have multiple MUs with intermediate or high effective populations, we deemed that species-level adaptive capacity, or representation, is high for the species. The high estimated resiliency and redundancy of the Chowan metapopulation is particularly important for species-level representation, given that it is the most genetically distinctive metapopulation (Roberts et al. 2013, entire). The Chowan metapopulation occurs in the most ecologically distinct environment (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994, pp. 786-787; Rosenberger and Angermeier 2003, entire) and, therefore, potentially contributes disproportionately to the evolutionary diversity of the species.

We assessed future conditions for the Roanoke logperch using a population viability model that forecasts population size and species' viability approximately 50 years into the future (2070). We determined that a 50-year timeframe was appropriate because it provided a reasonable time period for assessing the threats of urbanization and climate change, while also representing just over 10 logperch generations (assuming a 4.5-year generation time; Roberts 2012a, p. 89)—an adequate timeframe for evaluating species response. As with current condition, future conditions were assessed using the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation, with resiliency gauged by assessing MU persistence probability over the 50-year timeframe and metapopulation redundancy and species representation gauged by counts of MUs with intermediate to high resilience.

We forecasted future conditions for the Roanoke logperch under 12 scenarios, featuring 3 management categories contrasted with 4 different assumptions about future environmental conditions including different watershed urbanization levels, climate change scenarios, and conservation management ( i.e., Roanoke logperch population restoration efforts and habitat connectivity restoration via barrier removals) (see chapter 4 of the SSA report (Service 2022a, pp. 41-57)). The forecasted future conditions showed 8 of 11 MUs with 99 or 100 percent probability of persistence under all 12 scenarios until 2070. Even under the worst plausible future scenario (increased risk of watershed urbanization, decreased habitat suitability, no population augmentation, and no barrier removal), at least one MU is projected to persist in each of three metapopulations (Roanoke Mountain, Roanoke Piedmont, Chowan), and all of the MUs in the fourth metapopulation, Dan, are projected to maintain resiliency. Redundancy is projected to be consistently high in the Roanoke Mountain, Dan, and Chowan metapopulations. In contrast, redundancy of the Roanoke Piedmont metapopulation depends strongly on future environmental and management conditions. Under declining habitat conditions, the Roanoke Piedmont metapopulation maintains only one MU, whereas with conservation management ( i.e., PARTI and barrier removal) it maintains three MUs. Species-level representation is relatively high under scenarios where multiple Roanoke Piedmont MUs maintain resiliency, but only partially achieved in situations where the Roanoke Piedmont metapopulation decreases to one remaining MU.

In summary, owing to a large geographic range that includes at least some numerically large populations in good-quality habitat, we estimate that species-level representation and redundancy for Roanoke logperch currently is relatively high. All four metapopulations exhibit at least some redundancy of MUs in intermediate to high resiliency condition. In the future, under the worst-case scenario of worsening habitat quality, increased risk, and no management, 8 of 11 MUs are projected to remain highly resilient by year 2070. The Roanoke Piedmont metapopulation and its constituent MUs show the lowest resiliency and redundancy, particularly under scenarios involving worsening habitat quality. However, these declines could potentially be offset through restoration measures like PARTI (augmenting weak populations and establishing new ones) and/or barrier removal and passage (allowing natural augmentation and colonization).

We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of the species, we evaluated the effects of all the relevant factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (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 defines an “endangered species” as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether 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.

When the Roanoke logperch was listed as endangered in 1989, it was thought to be endemic to Virginia and to inhabit only the upper Roanoke, Pigg, Nottoway, and Smith Rivers. Since then, the species' known range has expanded to 31 streams spanning 55 watersheds (HUCs) in both Virginia and North Carolina, and restoration work (such as barrier removal, construction of fish passages, and riparian habitat improvement) has occurred throughout the species' range. Furthermore, no population extirpations are known.

After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we deemed that six factors influence Roanoke logperch viability:

(1) Fine-sediment deposition from urbanization, agriculture, and other sources smothers eggs and reduces feeding efficiency, potentially resulting in reduced growth, survival, and recruitment.

(2) Chronic chemical pollution reduces habitat suitability for the Roanoke logperch, and acute pollution events reduce survival and population size.

(3) Dams and other barriers inhibit fish movement, fragmenting populations into smaller areas and reducing demographic rescue and gene flow among populations.

(4) Climate change has the potential to alter hydrology and sediment delivery by increasing flood magnitudes and flow variability in general, reducing flow predictability, decreasing summer/fall base flows, and increasing erosion and runoff of sediment, potentially reducing habitat suitability for all age-classes of Roanoke logperch and increasing direct mortality of vulnerable juveniles during spring floods.

(5) Existing legal and regulatory mechanisms such as protections of the Act, the CWA, and State-level equivalents have benefitted the species through prohibitions on activities that may cause take and by facilitating funding opportunities used for Roanoke logperch research and conservation (note, however, that our assessment of status does not take into account the protections and benefits of the species being listed under the Act).

(6) Management activities aimed at improving habitat quality ( e.g., riparian revegetation to reduce silt loading), restoring habitat connectivity ( e.g., removing dams and constructing fish passages over barriers), and directly manipulating populations through propagation, augmentation, reintroduction, translocation, and introduction of fish ( i.e., PARTI) have increased the resiliency and redundancy of populations.

Based on the species' expanded geographic distribution since the time of listing, the lack of empirical records of watersheds that have become unoccupied or populations that have become extirpated, and our analysis of threats, we conclude that the Roanoke logperch has a very low risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. The current number and distribution of intermediate to high resiliency MUs is high across all four metapopulations, species-level adaptive capacity is relatively high, and threats now and in the foreseeable future are low. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that Roanoke logperch is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, 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. Having determined that the Roanoke logperch is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of extinction ( i.e., endangered) or likely to become so in the foreseeable future ( i.e., threatened) in a significant portion of its range—that is, 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 so in the foreseeable future in that portion. We can choose to 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.

Our analysis of the Roanoke logperch identified four MUs occupying a discrete geographical area where habitat conditions are relatively homogenous. We identified two MUs or metapopulations to consider as potentially significant portions of the species' range: (1) the Roanoke Piedmont metapopulation, because it was variable in terms of resiliency and had the lowest redundancy score; and (2) the Chowan metapopulation, because it houses the most genetically unique population of the species. The remaining two portions of the range (Roanoke Mountain and Dan metapopulations) were not considered due to their consistently high resiliency and redundancy, indicating the species is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in those portions. In undertaking this analysis for the Roanoke Piedmont and Chowan metapopulations, we choose to address the significance question first. In the absence of a legal definition of significance in the Act, we determined significance on a case-by-case basis for the Roanoke logperch using a reasonable interpretation of significance and providing a rational basis for our determination. In doing so, we considered what is currently observed about the contributions made by each geographic portion in terms of biological factors, focusing on the importance of each in supporting the continued viability of the species. We also evaluated whether the area occupies relatively large or particularly high-quality or unique habitat.

The Roanoke Piedmont represents one of the four metapopulations in our analysis. It was defined by combining river basin ( i.e., Roanoke River Basin) and ecoregion ( i.e., upper Piedmont). This metapopulation represents 25 percent of the species' range, which is a small proportion of the Roanoke logperch's range and encompasses a small proportion of the species' overall population. Further, it is not unique in that it shares similar geology, topography, water chemistry, habitat, and climate with another upper Piedmont part of the range, the Dan metapopulation. We conclude that the Roanoke Piedmont is not a significant portion of the range.

In our representation analysis, we note the special nature of the Chowan metapopulation. Intraspecific genetic studies of Roanoke logperch indicate that the Chowan basin houses the most genetically unique population of the species; however, overall levels of intraspecific genetic divergence are relatively minor, such that no major subspecific phylogeographic distinctions ( e.g., evolutionarily significant units) are evident. The high estimated resiliency and redundancy of the Chowan metapopulation is particularly important for species-level representation. This evolutionary unit is the most genetically distinctive metapopulation, occurs in the most ecologically distinct environment, and therefore potentially contributes disproportionately to the evolutionary diversity of the species.

Having identified the Chowan as a significant portion of the Roanoke logperch's range, we then focused our analysis on whether this portion of the species' range may meet the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. We considered whether the threats to, or their effects on, the species are greater in this portion of the species' range than in other portions such that the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in that portion. We examined the following threats: fine-sediment deposition, pollution, dams/barriers, and climate change, including their cumulative effects.

Our analysis indicates that the primary threats are not acting on the Roanoke logperch in the Chowan Basin such that the Chowan metapopulation would have a different status than other portions of the species' range. The current condition of Roanoke logperch in the Chowan metapopulation consists of a high resiliency MU, indicating that the species has robust population densities, high genetic diversity, adequate available suitable habitat, and security from risks like pollution events. We project that, in the foreseeable future, Roanoke logperch in the Chowan metapopulation would have a 100 percent probability of persistence regardless of future scenario. Therefore, we conclude that the species is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in the Chowan portion of the range.

We found no biologically meaningful portion of the Roanoke logperch's range where the condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of the species' range.

Therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. This finding does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d. 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Act's definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), including the definition of “significant” that those court decisions held to be invalid.

Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Roanoke logperch does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2) currently in effect, the Roanoke logperch has recovered to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, we are removing Roanoke logperch from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing Roanoke logperch from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. On the effective date of this rule (see DATES , above), the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, will no longer apply to this species. Federal agencies will no longer be required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect Roanoke logperch. There is no critical habitat designated for this species, so there will be no effect to 50 CFR 17.95.

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for all species that have been recovered. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that proposing the Roanoke logperch as an endangered or threatened species is not again needed. If at any time during the monitoring period data indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing.

We will coordinate with other Federal agencies, State resource agencies, interested scientific organizations, and others as appropriate to develop and implement an effective PDM plan for the Roanoke logperch. The PDM plan will build upon current research and effective management practices that have improved the status of the species since listing. Ensuring continued implementation of proven management strategies that have been developed to sustain the species will be a fundamental goal for the PDM plan. The PDM plan will identify measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and reacting to significant changes in Roanoke logperch numbers, distribution, and persistence. If declines are detected equaling or exceeding these thresholds, we will, in combination with other PDM participants, investigate causes of these declines. The investigation will be to determine if the Roanoke logperch warrants expanded monitoring, additional research, additional habitat protection, or resumption of Federal protection under the Act.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Federal Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribes will be affected by this final rule because there are no Tribal lands or interests within or adjacent to Roanoke logperch habitat.

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Virginia Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

On June 25, 2025, NMFS published a final rule implementing fishing periods ( i.e., season dates) and fishing period limits ( i.e., catch limits), by vessel size class, for the IPHC Area 2A Pacific halibut non-Tribal directed commercial fishery that operates south of Point Chehalis, WA (lat. 46°53.30′ N) (90 FR 26931, June 25, 2025). The Area 2A non-Tribal directed commercial fishery allocation is 259,515 pounds (117.7 mt), net weight ( i.e., the weight of Pacific halibut that is without gills and entrails, head-off, washed, and without ice and slime) (90 FR 13293, March 21, 2025).

The initial fishing periods occurred June 24-26 and July 8-10, 2025, with fishing period limits ranging from 2,000 pounds to 5,000 pounds (0.9 mt to 2.3 mt), varied by vessel size class. The California, Oregon, and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife provide estimated harvest data to NMFS inseason. This landings information indicates that sufficient allocation remains to warrant an additional fishing period. To date, approximately 173,488 pounds (78.7 mt), net weight, have been harvested of the 259,515-pound (117.7 mt) allocation (67.9 percent), leaving 86,027 pounds (39.0 mt) remaining (33.1 percent).

NMFS is adding a fishing period not previously implemented in the final rule published on June 25, 2025 (90 FR 26931), in accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii). Fishing period limits implemented through inseason action are set equal across all vessel size classes and are based on the allocation estimated to be remaining and the projected participation and catch rates in this additional fishing period.

NMFS has determined the following inseason action is necessary to meet the management objective of attaining the allocation, is not anticipated to risk exceeding the allocation, and is consistent with the inseason management provisions allowing for additional fishing periods.

This inseason action implements an additional fishing period, beginning July 22, 2025, at 8 a.m. PDT and ending on July 24, 2025, at 6 p.m. PDT. This inseason action also implements a fishing period catch limit of 5,000 pounds (2.3 mt) per vessel, dressed weight (head-on, with ice and slime), for all vessel size classes.

On July 16, 2025, notice of this inseason action was sent via email notification directly to the affected permit holders using the email addresses obtained from the 2025 Pacific halibut directed commercial fishery permit applications. Notice of this inseason action was also posted on the NMFS website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/2025-west-coast-pacific-halibut-directed-commercial-fishery. Pursuant to 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii) this inseason action is effective either upon the date and time of receipt of the direct email notification, or upon publication in the Federal Register , whichever occurs earlier (90 FR 26931, June 25, 2025).

NMFS issues this action pursuant to the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. This action is taken under the regulatory authority at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As previously noted, notification of the additional fishing period was provided to the affected public through direct email to permit holders and to the general public via the NMFS website. As of July 16, 2025, the Area 2A non-Tribal directed commercial fishery had caught only an estimated 66.9 percent of the fishery allocation. Given that harvest in the first two fishing periods in 2025 is estimated to be well below the annual allocation, sufficient allocation remains to warrant an additional fishing period and a third fishing period is considered necessary to maximize commercial fishing opportunity to attain the allocation. On July 16, 2025, in accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii), notice of this inseason action was sent via email notification directly to the affected permit holders using the email addresses obtained from the 2025 Pacific halibut directed commercial fishery permit applications. Notice of inseason action to add subsequent fishing periods via direct email to permit holders was established in 2025 to provide fishermen sufficient time to plan for any additional fishing period and to follow the prescribed schedule for additional fishing periods set out in the final rule establishing the annual management measures for the directed commercial fishery (90 FR 26931, June 25, 2025).

The fishery may close no later than December 7, 2025 (90 FR 13293, March 21, 2025). As such, implementing this action through proposed and final rulemaking would limit the benefit this action is intended to provide to fishery participants. Without timely implementation of any warranted additional fishing periods, the annual fishery allocation would unlikely be reached. Failure to meet the annual allocation would limit the economic benefits from the fishery to participants and would result in the fishery not meeting the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan. Additionally, no aspect of this action is controversial, and inseason changes of this nature were anticipated in the process described in regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii) and in the final rule (90 FR 26931, June 25, 2025). Accordingly, there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action.

For the reasons discussed above, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 30 days after the date of publication of this action in the Federal Register , as such a delay in effectiveness would unnecessarily constrain fishing opportunity and be inconsistent with the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan. Such a delay would also limit the economic opportunity for fishermen and their associated fishing communities that is intended to be created by this rule. This inseason action is warranted based on remaining allocation and is not expected to result in exceeding the Area 2A Pacific halibut non-Tribal directed commercial fishery allocation. NMFS regulations allow for adding fishing periods and setting fishing period limits inseason to provide opportunity to achieve the annual allocation, when sufficient allocation remains and additional fishing will not result in exceeding the catch limit for the fishery. NMFS recently received information on the progress of landings in the non-Tribal directed commercial fishery, indicating that an additional fishing period with fishing period limits should be implemented in the fishery to ensure optimal and sustainable harvest of the allocation. As stated above, it is in the public interest that this action is not delayed, because a delay in the effectiveness of this additional fishing period would likely inhibit the allocation objectives of the Area 2A Pacific halibut non-Tribal directed commercial fishery from being met. Finally, NMFS has determined that this rule qualifies for a waiver of the 30-day delay in effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) because absent the delay in effectiveness participants would otherwise be able to fish on the dates outlined for the additional fishing period in the final rule (90 FR 26931, June 25, 2025).