14412 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Chlortetracycline amount Combination 

in grams/ton Indications for use Limitations Sponsor 

*******

(xxi) 400 to 2,000 g/ton ....................... Monensin, 15 

to 84.

Replacement beef and dairy heifers: 

For treatment of bacterial enteritis 

caused by Escherichia coli and 

bacterial pneumonia caused by 

Pasteurella multocida susceptible 

to chlortetracycline; and for the 

prevention and control of coccidiosis caused by Eimeria bovis and 

Eimeria zuernii.

For replacement beef and dairy heifers not currently 

being fed monensin: Feed as the sole ration for not 

more than 5 days to provide 10 mg chlortetracycline 

per pound of body weight per day and 0.14 to 0.42 

mg monensin per pound of body weight per day, depending upon severity of challenge, to provide 50 to 

100 mg monensin per head per day in a minimum of 

1 pound of Type C medicated feed. After 5 days, continue to feed monensin Type C medicated feed alone 

to provide 50 to 200 mg monensin per head per day 

in a minimum of 1 pound of Type C medicated feed.

For replacement beef and dairy heifers currently being 

fed monensin: Feed as the sole ration for not more 

than 5 days to provide 10 mg chlortetracycline per 

pound of body weight per day and 0.14 to 0.42 mg 

monensin per pound of body weight per day, depending upon severity of challenge, to provide 50 to 200 

mg monensin per head per day in a minimum of 1 

pound of Type C medicated feed. After 5 days, continue to feed monensin Type C medicated feed alone.

069254 

This drug is not approved for use in female dairy cattle 

20 months of age or older, including dry dairy cows. 

Use in these cattle may cause drug residues in milk 

and/or in calves born to these cows. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal.

Monensin as provided by No. 058198, chlortetracycline 

by No. 069254 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

(xxii) 400 to 2,000 g/ton ...................... Monensin, 15 

to 400.

Replacement beef and dairy heifers: 

For treatment of bacterial enteritis 

caused by Escherichia coli and 

bacterial pneumonia caused by 

Pasteurella multocida susceptible 

to chlortetracycline; and for increased rate of weight gain.

For replacement beef and dairy heifers not currently 

being fed monensin: Feed as the sole ration for not 

more than 5 days to provide 10 mg chlortetracycline 

per pound of body weight per day and 50 to 100 mg 

monensin per head per day in a minimum of 1 pound 

of Type C medicated feed. After 5 days, continue to 

feed monensin Type C medicated feed alone to provide 50 to 200 mg monensin per head per day in a 

minimum of 1 pound of Type C medicated feed.

For replacement beef and dairy heifers currently being 

fed monensin: Feed as the sole ration for not more 

than 5 days to provide 10 mg chlortetracycline per 

pound of body weight per day and 50 to 200 mg 

monensin per head per day in a minimum of 1 pound 

of Type C medicated feed. After 5 days, continue to 

feed monensin Type C medicated feed alone.

069254 

This drug is not approved for use in female dairy cattle 

20 months of age or older, including dry dairy cows. 

Use in these cattle may cause drug residues in milk 

and/or in calves born to these cows. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal.

Monensin as provided by No. 058198, chlortetracycline 

by No. 069254 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

*******

§ 558.600 [Removed] 

■ 25. Remove § 558.600. 

Dated: February 20, 2024. 

Lauren K. Roth, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03765 Filed 2–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0604; FRL–10574– 

02–R9] 

Air Plan Approval; CA; San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

revisions were submitted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 

on behalf of SJVAPCD, in response to 

the EPA’s May 22, 2015 finding of 

substantial inadequacy and SIP call for 

certain provisions in the SIP related to 

exemptions and affirmative defenses 

applicable to excess emissions during 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM) events. The EPA is finalizing 

approval of the SIP revisions because 

the Agency has determined that they are 

in accordance with the requirements for 

SIP provisions under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) and correct 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 14413 

1State Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 

(February 22, 2013). 

2 80 FR 33839. 

3October 9, 2020, memorandum ‘‘Inclusion of 

Provisions Governing Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State 

Implementation Plans,’’ from Andrew R. Wheeler, 

Administrator. 

4September 30, 2021, memorandum ‘‘Withdrawal 

of the October 9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State 

Implementation Plans and Implementation of the 

Prior Policy,’’ from Janet McCabe, Deputy 

Administrator. 

5 80 FR 33985. 

deficiencies identified in the May 22, 

2015, SIP call. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 28, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0604. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

a disability who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 947–4125 or by 

email at vineyard.christine@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On February 22, 2013, the EPA issued 

a Federal Register notice of proposed 

rulemaking outlining EPA’s policy at 

the time with respect to SIP provisions 

related to periods of SSM. The EPA 

analyzed specific SSM SIP provisions 

and explained how each one either did 

or did not comply with the CAA with 

regard to excess emission events.1 For 

each SIP provision that the EPA 

determined to be inconsistent with the 

CAA, the EPA proposed to find that the 

existing SIP provision was substantially 

inadequate to meet CAA requirements 

and thus proposed to issue a SIP call 

under CAA section 110(k)(5). On 

September 17, 2014, the EPA issued a 

document supplementing and revising 

what the Agency had previously 

proposed on February 22, 2013, in light 

of a D.C. Circuit decision that 

determined the CAA precludes 

authority of the EPA to create 

affirmative defense provisions 

applicable to private civil suits. The 

EPA outlined its updated policy that 

affirmative defense SIP provisions are 

not consistent with CAA requirements. 

The EPA proposed in the supplemental 

proposal document to apply its revised 

interpretation of the CAA to specific 

affirmative defense SIP provisions and 

proposed SIP calls for those provisions 

where appropriate (79 FR 55920, 

September 17, 2014). 

On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k)(5), the EPA finalized 

‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response 

to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement 

and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy 

Applicable to SIPs; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to 

Amend Provisions Applying to Excess 

Emissions During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown and Malfunction,’’ hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘2015 SSM SIP 

Action.’’ 2 The 2015 SSM SIP Action 

clarified, restated, and updated the 

EPA’s interpretation that SSM 

exemptions and affirmative defense SIP 

provisions are inconsistent with CAA 

requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action 

found that certain SIP provisions in 36 

states were substantially inadequate to 

meet CAA requirements and issued a 

SIP call to those states to submit SIP 

revisions to address the inadequacies. 

The EPA established an 18-month 

deadline by which the affected states 

had to submit such SIP revisions. States 

were required to submit corrective 

revisions to their SIPs in response to the 

SIP calls by November 22, 2016. 

The EPA issued a Memorandum in 

October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), 

which stated that certain provisions 

governing SSM periods in SIPs could be 

viewed as consistent with CAA 

requirements.3 Importantly, the 2020 

Memorandum stated that it ‘‘did not 

alter in any way the determinations 

made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that 

identified specific state SIP provisions 

that were substantially inadequate to 

meet the requirements of the Act.’’ 

Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum 

had no direct impact on the SIP call 

issued to SJVAPCD in 2015. The 2020 

Memorandum did, however, indicate 

the EPA’s intent at the time to review 

SIP calls that were issued in the 2015 

SSM SIP Action to determine whether 

the EPA should maintain, modify, or 

withdraw particular SIP calls through 

future agency actions. 

On September 30, 2021, the EPA’s 

Deputy Administrator withdrew the 

2020 Memorandum and announced the 

EPA’s return to the policy articulated in 

the 2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 

Memorandum).4 As articulated in the 

2021 Memorandum, SIP provisions that 

contain exemptions or affirmative 

defense provisions are not consistent 

with CAA requirements and, therefore, 

generally are not approvable if 

contained in a SIP submission. This 

policy approach is intended to ensure 

that all communities and populations, 

including overburdened communities, 

receive the full health and 

environmental protections provided by 

the CAA.5 The 2021 Memorandum also 

retracted the prior statement from the 

2020 Memorandum of EPA’s plans to 

review and potentially modify or 

withdraw particular SIP calls. That 

statement no longer reflects the EPA’s 

intent. The EPA intends to implement 

the principles laid out in the 2015 SSM 

SIP Action as the Agency takes action 

on SIP submissions, including 

SJVAPCD’s SIP submittal, provided in 

response to the 2015 SIP call. 

With regards to SJVAPCD, the SIP call 

identified Rules 110, 111, and 113 

because the rules contained improper 

affirmative defenses for excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction events. On August 10, 

2023 (88 FR 54257), the EPA proposed 

to approve removal of the rules in the 

following table from the California SIP. 

District Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

San Joaquin Valley APCD (Fresno County APCD) ................................. 110 Equipment Breakdown ....... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022 

San Joaquin Valley APCD (Stanislaus County APCD) ............................ 110 Equipment Breakdown ....... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
14414 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

District Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

San Joaquin Valley APCD (Kern County APCD) ..................................... 111 Equipment Breakdown ....... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022 

San Joaquin Valley APCD (Kings County APCD) ................................... 111 Equipment Breakdown ....... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022

San Joaquin Valley (Tulare County APCD) ............................................. 111 Equipment Breakdown ....... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022 

San Joaquin Valley APCD (Madera County APCD) ................................ 113 Equipment Breakdown ....... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022 

As discussed in the proposal, the EPA 

proposed to approve the removal of 

these rules from the SJVAPCD portions 

of the California SIP because such 

removal is consistent with CAA 

requirements and would correct the 

deficiencies identified by the Agency in 

the 2015 SSM SIP Action. SJVAPCD is 

retaining the affirmative defenses solely 

for state law purposes, outside of the 

EPA approved SIP. Removal of the 

affirmative defenses from the SIP is also 

consistent with the EPA policy for 

exclusion of ‘‘state law only’’ provisions 

from SIPs and will serve to minimize 

any potential confusion about the 

inapplicability of the affirmative 

defense provisions in Federal court 

enforcement actions. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received one comment 

from the Sierra Club and Environmental 

Integrity Project in support of the 

proposed rulemaking. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rules as 

described in our proposed action. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, and for the reasons 

identified in the August 22, 2023 

proposal, the EPA is fully approving the 

removal of these rules from the 

SJVAPCD portion of the California SIP. 

The Agency’s final approval of this 

submission fully corrects the 

inadequacies in the SJVAPCD portion of 

the California SIP that were identified in 

the EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP Action. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

amending regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. As described 

in section I of the preamble and as set 

forth below in the amendments to 40 

CFR part 52, the EPA is removing 

provisions from the Fresno County, 

Kern County, Kings County, Madera 

County, Stanislaus County, and Tulare 

County portions of the California SIP, 

which is incorporated by reference in 

accordance with the requirements of 1 

CFR 51. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and at the EPA Region IX Office (please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided they 

meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a state program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The State did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. The EPA did not perform an 

EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in 

this action. Consideration of EJ is not 

required as part of this action, and there 

is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goal of 

Executive Order 12898 of achieving 

environmental justice for people of 

color, low-income populations, and 

Indigenous peoples. 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and the EPA 

will submit a rule report to each House 

of the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 14415 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by April 29, 2024. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of the final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: February 5, 2024. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (c)(47)(ii)(C); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(47)(iii)(C); 

and

■ c. Adding paragraphs (c)(47)(iii)(D), 

(c)(51)(ix)(E) and (F), (c)(51)(x)(D) and 

(E), (c)(52)(iv)(H) and (I), (c)(126)(iii)(D), 

and (c)(138)(v)(F). 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part.

* * * * * 

(c) * * *

(47) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Previously approved on October

24, 1980, in paragraph (c)(47)(ii)(A) of 

this section and now deleted without 

replacement: Rule 110, ‘‘Equipment 

Breakdown.’’ 

(iii) * * * 

(C) Previously approved on October

24, 1980, in paragraph (c)(47)(iii)(A) of 

this section and now deleted without 

replacement for implementation in the 

Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control 

District: Rule 111, ‘‘Equipment 

Breakdown.’’ 

(D) Previously approved on October

24, 1980, in paragraph (c)(47)(iii)(A) of 

this section and now deleted without 

replacement for implementation in the 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District: Rule 111, 

‘‘Equipment Breakdown.’’ 

* * * * * 

(51) * * * 

(ix) * * * 

(E) Previously approved on December

9, 1981, in paragraph (c)(51)(ix)(B) of 

this section and now deleted without 

replacement: Rule 110 (A), (B), and (D)– 

(I), ‘‘Equipment Breakdown.’’ 

(F) Previously approved on June 18,

1982, in paragraph (c)(51)(ix)(C) of this 

section and now deleted without 

replacement: Rule 110 (C), ‘‘Equipment 

Breakdown.’’ 

(x) * * * 

(D) Previously approved on December

9, 1981, in paragraph (c)(51)(x)(B) of this 

section and now deleted without 

replacement: Rule 111 (a), (b), and (d)– 

(i), ‘‘Equipment Breakdown.’’ 

(E) Previously approved on June 18,

1982, in paragraph (c)(51)(x)(C) of this 

section and now deleted without 

replacement: Rule 111(c), ‘‘Equipment 

Breakdown.’’ 

* * * * * 

(52) * * *

(iv) * * *

(H) Previously approved on December

9, 1981, in paragraph (c)(52)(iv)(B) of 

this section and now deleted without 

replacement: Rule 111 (A), (B), and (D)– 

(I), ‘‘Equipment Breakdown.’’ 

(I) Previously approved on June 18,

1982, in paragraph (c)(52)(iv)(C) of this 

section and now deleted without 

replacement: Rule 111(C), ‘‘Equipment 

Breakdown.’’ 

* * * * * 

(126) * * * 

(iii) * * *

(D) Previously approved on June 1,

1983, in paragraph (c)(126)(iii)(A) of this 

section and now deleted without 

replacement: Rule 110, ‘‘Equipment 

Breakdown.’’ 

* * * * * 

(138) * * * 

(v) * * *

(F) Previously approved on November

18, 1983, in paragraph (c)(138)(v)(A) of 

this section and now deleted without 

replacement: Rule 113, ‘‘Equipment 

Breakdown.’’ 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–03894 Filed 2–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 231101–0256; RTID 0648– 

XD672] 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2024 

Recreational Closure for Golden 

Tilefish in the South Atlantic 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 2024 

recreational fishing season for golden 

tilefish in the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ) of the South Atlantic. 

Announcing the length of the 

recreational season is the accountability 

measure (AM) for the recreational 

sector. NMFS estimates that recreational 

landings of golden tilefish will reach the 

recreational annual catch limit (ACL) for 

the 2024 fishing year by February 29, 

2024. Accordingly, NMFS announces 

the closure date for the recreational 

harvest of golden tilefish in the South 

Atlantic EEZ to protect the golden 

tilefish resource. 

DATES: This temporary rule is effective 

from March 1, 2024, through December 

31, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karla Gore, NMFS Southeast Regional 

Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email: 

karla.gore@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

snapper-grouper fishery of the South 

Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is 

managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic 

Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared 

by the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council and NMFS, and is 

implemented by NMFS under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(a)(2) 

specify the 2024 recreational ACL for 

golden tilefish of 2,635 fish, and the 

recreational AM. The recreational AM 

states that NMFS will project the length 

of the recreational fishing season for 

golden tilefish based on catch rates from 

the previous fishing year and announce 

the end date of the recreational season 

(50 CFR 622.193(a)(2)). The recreational 

season for golden tilefish started on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1