Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations Pertaining to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0029; FXES11130900000-267-FF09E23000] RIN 1018-BI74 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations Pertaining to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or the Service), revise our regulations concerning protections of threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (Act). We are removing the “blanket rule” option for protecting newly listed threatened species pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act. DATES: This rule is effective August 20, 2026. ADDRESSES: Public comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this final regulation, are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0029. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Tirpak, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation and Classification; 703-358-2163; john_tirpak@fws.gov. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (hereafter referred to as the Act or ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), states that the purposes of the Act are to provide a means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species (listed species) depend, to provide a program for the conservation of listed species, and to achieve the purposes of certain treaties and conventions (16 U.S.C. 1531(b)). Moreover, the Act states that it is the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531(c)(1)). This rulemaking action pertains to section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened species. Section 9(a) of the Act provides a specific list of prohibitions for endangered species that are applicable automatically at the time of listing, but does not provide these same or comparable prohibitions automatically to threatened species. Instead, section 4(d) of the Act requires that whenever a species is listed as a threatened species the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall issue regulations that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species and also may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a) for an endangered species; these are referred to as “4(d) rules.” Congress delegated to the Secretary the authority to determine what protections each threatened species should receive. Early in the administration of the Act, the Service promulgated “blanket rules,” for threatened species of wildlife and plants at 50 CFR 17.31(a) and 17.71(a), respectively. Pursuant to these blanket rules, as soon as a species was listed as threatened, nearly all the section 9(a) prohibitions that apply to endangered species would automatically apply to threatened species, unless we issued an alternative rule for that species ( i.e., a species-specific rule, previously referred to as “special rules”). In those instances when we issued a species-specific rule for a species, that species-specific 4(d) rule contained the protective regulations for that species. On August 27, 2019, we issued a final rule that revised 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 (84 FR 44753; hereafter, “the 2019 rule”) and removed the “blanket rule” option for applying section 9(a) prohibitions to species newly listed as threatened after the effective date of those regulatory revisions (September 26, 2019). The “blanket rule” protections continued to apply to threatened species without an associated species-specific rule that were listed prior to September 26, 2019. Under the 2019 rule, we applied protections to a species newly listed as threatened only through issuance of a species-specific rule setting out the protective regulations that are necessary and advisable for that species. On April 5, 2024, we reinstated the “blanket rule” option at 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 for newly listed threatened species and finalized several other revisions to 50 CFR part 17 (89 FR 23919; hereafter, “the 2024 rule”). Those 2024 revised regulations became effective on May 6, 2024. The 2024 rule is subject to pending litigation in Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. et al.; 2:25-cv-00029-KLD (D. Mont.). A second case that was identified in the proposed rule, American Farm Bureau Federation et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. et al.; 1:25-cv-00947 (D.D.C.), has since been voluntarily dismissed. Prior litigation over the 2019 rule was not resolved on the merits; rather, on November 16, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued orders remanding the 2019 rule to the Service without vacating it, as the Service had voluntarily asked the Court to do. Soon after, the Service developed the 2024 rule. In our 2025 proposed rule (90 FR 52587, November 21, 2025) we referred to two Executive Orders (E.O.s) as the impetus for reviewing and revising the regulations that pertain to protections for threatened species under section 4(d). E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” issued January 20, 2025, directed all departments and agencies to review agency actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources, and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consider suspending, revising, or rescinding agency actions that conflict with this national objective. To administer provisions of E.O. 14154, the Secretary subsequently issued Secretary's Order (S.O.) 3418 on February 3, 2025, which directed Assistant Secretaries to take steps, as appropriate, to suspend, revise, or rescind multiple actions that had been finalized under the prior Administration. The S.O. specifically referenced taking these steps with respect to the 2024 rule. E.O. 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative,” issued February 19, 2025, also directs all departments and agencies to review and rescind unlawful regulations that are “based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority” (see also Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (hereafter, “ Loper Bright” )). While E.O.s 14154 and 14219 initiated our review, our goal in revising these regulations was to determine how best to craft protective regulations for threatened species under section 4(d) of the Act while also considering our experience administering the Act and policy preferences. Based on our evaluation, and for reasons discussed in more detail below, we are revising 50 CFR part 17. The Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce share responsibilities for administering most of the provisions of the Act. Generally, marine species and some anadromous (sea-run) species are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce, and all other species are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. Authority to administer the Act has been delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Director of the Service and by the Secretary of Commerce to the Assistant Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). FWS and NMFS (collectively, the Services) separately administer section 4(d) for species within their respective jurisdictions. When we amended our section 4(d) regulations in 2019, and again in 2024, those amendments affected only species under FWS jurisdiction. This regulation similarly affects only species under FWS jurisdiction. Since this rulemaking is solely applicable to the FWS, when we refer to the Secretary, we mean the Secretary of the Interior. Regulatory Revisions We are revising the regulations in 50 CFR part 17, subparts D and G. Section 4(d) of the Act gives the Secretary the authority and discretion to develop and revise regulations for protecting threatened species. We are removing the future use of the “blanket rule” option from 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 for threatened species. Removing the future use of the “blanket rule” option from 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71 is a superior choice from a policy perspective. This approach ensures that the Service will thoughtfully consider the protections that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of each threatened species. As we noted in the 2019 rule, “[w]here we have developed species-specific 4(d) rules, we have seen many benefits, including removing redundant permitting requirements, facilitating implementation of beneficial conservation actions, and making better use of our limited personnel and fiscal resources by focusing prohibitions on the stressors contributing to the threatened status of the species” (84 FR 44753 at 44754, August 27, 2019). This tailored approach may reduce future permitting burdens on the Service and regulated entities alike and is intended to allow the Service to better protect threatened species. This approach also brings the Service in line with the NMFS's longstanding practice of developing species-specific 4(d) rules rather than using a “blanket rule” option which will provide entities regulated by both the Service and NMFS more certainty in process. Removing the future use of the “blanket rule” option will result in no immediate changes to protections for currently listed threatened species that receive “blanket rule” protections. For every species newly listed as a threatened species after this final rule takes effect, and those reclassified in the future, we will comply with section 4(d) of the Act and issue the protective regulations that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of that species. As is current practice, when we are proposing to protect a threatened species with a species-specific rule, the public will be afforded an opportunity to provide public comment on the proposed regulation. We are also finalizing new regulatory text at 50 CFR 17.31(d) and 17.71(d) to explain that, going forward, whenever we propose a species-specific 4(d) rule, we will ensure that each rule includes a necessary and advisable determination (including consideration of conservation and economic impacts) and we will seek public comment on that determination. We include this additional regulatory text, to provide transparency to the public about our decision-making process and to address Kansas Natural Resources Coalition, et al. v. USFWS, et al. 780 F.Supp.3d 650 (W.D. Tex. 2025) (hereafter, “ Kansas Natural Resources Coalition” ), in which the court interpreted section 4(d) and found that the Service failed to conduct the proper “necessary and advisable” considerations in issuing its 4(d) rule by not evaluating both conservation and economic impacts. In our proposed rule (90 FR 52587, November 21, 2025), we specifically requested comments on whether we should include any requirement in the regulatory text for concurrently finalizing species-specific rules for newly listed or reclassified threatened species and decline to include this requirement at this time. As is our current practice, we intend to finalize species-specific rules concurrent with the final listing or reclassification determination. Between the time that the 2019 rule went into effect in September 2019, and when the 2024 rule went into effect on May 6, 2024, we listed or reclassified 46 threatened species (35 wildlife and 11 plant species) and published interim or final species-specific 4(d) rules for each of those species. During that time, there were no newly listed threatened species for which time elapsed between listing and putting in place protective regulations because we published either interim or final species-specific rules concurrently with each final classification action. These final regulations do not automatically require the reevaluation of any previous use of § 17.31(a) or § 17.71(a) for species without species-specific rules. However, we have always had the discretion to revise protective regulations ( e.g., revise existing species-specific rules or promulgate species-specific rules for species currently protected under a “blanket rule”) at any time if it is necessary and advisable for the conservation of a threatened species. In addition, we intend to review the current protective regulations for each threatened species in conjunction with our required status review pursuant to section 4(c)(2) of the Act. We may find during a status review that revising protective regulations for the threatened species is necessary and advisable for the conservation of that species. Depending upon other listing, delisting, and reclassification priorities, we will determine when to pursue rulemaking, which would include public notice and comment, for any changes in protective regulations. In this final rule, we summarize and discuss the comments received in response to the proposed rule (90 FR 52587, November 21, 2025) and provide additional explanation for our final regulation revisions. In the event any provision is invalidated or held to be impermissible as a result of a legal challenge, “the remainder of the regulation could function sensibly without the stricken provision” ( Belmont Mun. Light Dep't v. FERC, 38 F.4th 173, 187 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (quoting MD/DC/DE Broad. Ass'n v. FCC, 236 F.3d 13, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2001))). Because each of the provisions stands on its own, the Service views each of the provisions as operating independently from the other provisions. Thus, should a reviewing court invalidate any particular provision(s) of this rulemaking, the remaining provisions would still allow the Service to promulgate species-specific 4(d) rules. Specifically, these distinct provisions include: (1) removing the future use of the “blanket rule” option for wildlife from 50 CFR 17.31(a); (2) adding the requirement to make a necessary and advisable determination for each wildlife species-specific 4(d) rule (50 CFR 17.31(d)); (3) removing the future use of the “blanket rule” option for plants from 50 CFR 17.71(a); and (4) adding the requirement to make a necessary and advisable determination for each plant species-specific 4(d) rule (50 CFR 17.71(d)). In the event that any portion of this final rule is held to be invalid or impermissible, the Service intends that the remaining aspects of the regulatory provisions be severable. In finalizing the specific changes to the regulations in this document, the Service is establishing prospective standards only. These regulations will apply to species-specific 4(d) rules finalized after the effective date of this rule and will not alter the current protections for any threatened species whether protected by a “blanket rule” or species-specific 4(d) rule. For the effective date of this rule, see DATES, above. Nothing in these revisions to the regulations is intended to require that any prior 4(d) rule be revised. This rule is one of two rules publishing in today's Federal Register that revise the regulations that administer the Act. Summary of Comments and Responses In our November 21, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 52587), we requested public comments by December 22, 2025. We received a total of 14,620 submissions representing approximately 343,767 individuals on the proposed rule by the close of the comment period. Commenters included individual members of the public, representatives from States, Tribes, industry organizations, and environmental organizations, among others. During the public comment period, we received several requests for public hearings. Public hearings are not required for regulation revisions of this type, and we elected not to hold public hearings. We also received several requests for extensions of the public comment period. However, we elected not to extend the public comment period beyond the original 30-day public comment period because we found the 30-day comment period provided sufficient time for a thorough review of the proposed revisions. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) does not specify a minimum number of days for a comment period, but the comment period must be long enough to afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment. In this case, with a 30-day public comment period, the public had a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule, as demonstrated by the thousands of comments received. The primary revisions are to portions of the regulations that were previously revised in 2019 and 2024. The number of comments received indicate that members of the public were aware of the proposed rule and had adequate time to review it. In addition, we provided five informational sessions for a wide variety of audiences. Over 2,100 attendees participated in these sessions, and we addressed questions from the participants as part of the sessions. Finally, on our website, we provided additional information about the regulations, such as frequently asked questions and a prerecorded presentation on the proposed revisions. Most of the submissions were nonsubstantive in nature, expressing either general opposition to or support for the proposed rule with no supporting information or analysis. We received several hundred letters with detailed substantive comments with specific rationales for support of or opposition to specific portions of the proposed rule. We also received comments that were outside the scope of the rulemaking (such as comments to amend language in 50 CFR 17.32 to align with language in 50 CFR 17.22 and require a 30-day notice and comment period for threatened species permits, comments to suspend rulemaking until ongoing litigation challenging provisions of the 2019 rule ( Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep't of the Interior, No. 4:24-cv-04651 (N.D. Cal.)) is concluded, or comments concerning issues that may arise during implementation for future species-specific 4(d) rules) that we are not responding to here. We note that, for each future proposed species-specific 4(d) rule, the Service will provide an opportunity for public comment. Below, we summarize and respond to the significant, substantive comments we received. Removal of Blanket Rules Comment 1: Multiple commenters supported rescinding “blanket rules” as proposed, arguing that eliminating the application of a standard set of protections to newly listed threatened species would improve conservation outcomes by fostering collaboration among stakeholders, increasing regulatory flexibility, and allowing for more precise, species-specific management. Conversely, multiple commenters opposed rescinding the “blanket rules,” citing their precautionary value and efficiency. They detailed how “blanket rules” could be effective at conserving threatened species and argued that applying protections to threatened species immediately upon listing reduces extinction risk, addresses unknown threats, and aligns with the preventative intent of the Act. Commenters pointed out that we recently stated that there is nothing in the current regulations that prevents us from using species-specific 4(d) rules to tailor the regulations to the conservation needs of the species when needed (89 FR 23919, April 5, 2024). They also warned that removing “blanket rules” could leave threatened species with no or delayed protections, accelerating declines and undermining conservation efforts. Response: Pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, we are required to develop protective regulations that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. In addition, section 4(d) authorizes the Secretary to prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a) with respect to endangered species. Our protective regulations have consistently been, and will continue to be, based upon the best available scientific and commercial information. Although the “blanket rules” at 50 CFR 17.31(a) and 17.71(a) have been applied in an effort to conserve many threatened species, we have found that implementing species-specific 4(d) rules is a more effective and efficient use of our personnel and fiscal resources as they focus protections on the identified stressors contributing to the threatened status of the species. As noted in our 2024 rule (89 FR 23919 at 23926), species-specific 4(d) rules can incentivize known beneficial actions for species by removing or reducing regulatory burden associated with those actions and can also remove or reduce regulatory burden associated with permitting of otherwise prohibited actions or forms or amounts of “take” considered inconsequential to the conservation of the species. In turn, this information may assist with streamlining future section 7 consultations, as we recognize that in most situations it would be unlikely that additional measures would be required to further minimize take that is excepted in a 4(d) rule. Additionally, if project activities could be tailored to avoid forms of take prohibited by the 4(d) rule, consultation should be more straightforward and predictable. Furthermore, we anticipate landowners will be incentivized to take actions that would improve the status of endangered species with the possibility of downlisting the species and potentially receiving regulatory relief in the resulting 4(d) rule. For these reasons, we conclude that while blanket rules may offer administrative simplicity in some cases, species-specific rules better align with the Act's mandate to adopt regulations that are “necessary and advisable” for the conservation of threatened species and ultimately provide a more effective and efficient framework for achieving conservation outcomes. While promulgating species-specific 4(d) rules for every threatened species may require additional Service resources at the time of listing, we believe tailored species-specific protections ultimately provide regulatory time-savings for us and our conservation partners. We reiterate our intention to finalize species-specific 4(d) rules concurrently with final listing or reclassification determinations. This approach adds efficiency, predictability, and transparency to the rulemaking process because it correlates the Service's analysis of threats impacting the species (as discussed in the final listing or reclassification rule) to our analysis of protective regulations for the species. As a result, we believe these measures to increase public awareness, transparency, and predictability will enhance and expedite conservation, defined in the Act to mean “to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to [the Act] are no longer necessary” (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)). Comment 2: Several commenters stated that rescinding the “blanket rules” will allow for political interference and industry pressure on the Service to reduce protections for threatened species to the detriment of species conservation. Response: As explained in the preamble to the November 21, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 52587), the intent of this regulation is to focus protections on the stressors contributing to the threatened status of the species and to facilitate the implementation of beneficial conservation efforts with the ultimate goal of delisting the species. This practice of tailoring regulations to individual threatened species is guided by the Service's extensive history of administering the Act. Our determination of what protective regulation is necessary and advisable, as a whole, for the conservation of a given threatened species has consistently been, and will continue to be, based upon the best scientific and commercial data available to us at the time we promulgate the 4(d) rule. Comment 3: Some commenters stated that there is a requirement to conduct National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) analyses when issuing any species-specific 4(d) rules and this requirement will slow the administrative process and may delay listings and protection of threatened species. Response: We disagree that NEPA compliance delays the listing of or promulgation of protective regulations for threatened species. The Service intends to promulgate 4(d) rules in conjunction with rules to list species to efficiently provide regulatory protection to species that are determined to meet the criteria for listing. As supported by case law, we are not required to conduct NEPA analysis for species-specific 4(d) rules that are promulgated concurrent with listing decisions ( Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S.F.W.S., 2005 WL 2000928, slip op. at 12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005)). As a matter of practice, we do conduct NEPA analyses when we promulgate a species-specific stand-alone 4(d) rule ( i.e., not concurrent with a classification determination), consistent with case law ( In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 237 (D.D.C. 2011)). Furthermore, when we revise protections for a threatened species, the existing protections remain in effect until the revised 4(d) rule is finalized avoiding any gap in regulatory protection for the species in question. Comment 4: Commenters asserted that the proposed rule provides no evidence that the existing “blanket rules” create a regulatory burden, while their removal will likely increase administrative workload for the Service by requiring species-specific rules for each threatened species. Many pointed to the Service's substantial workload, recent staffing reductions, and limited funding, suggesting these constraints would make timely development of species-specific rules impractical and exacerbate delays. Others suggested that the proposed regulation revisions could reduce the administrative and economic burden for the Service since species-specific 4(d) rules allow the Service to focus regulatory attention on specific activities that contribute to the threatened status. Response: Developing species-specific 4(d) rules is a prudent and efficient use of our resources because of the benefits gained from tailoring protections specific to the conservation needs of the species. From the period after the “blanket rules” were put into place in 2024 to current, we have finalized 5 species-specific rules and did not apply either of the “blanket rules” to any threatened species. Similar information regarding use of the “blanket rules” is available related to the previous rulemaking that rescinded the “blanket rules” (RIN 1018-BC97; 84 FR 44753, August 27, 2019; https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007-69539 ). In general, the provisions of a 4(d) rule should be closely tied to the species' needs and primary factors influencing the biological status identified in the species status assessment report or other analysis of the species' biological status. Determining which protective regulations are appropriate for a species requires us to address the stressors leading to threatened species status. This determination logically flows from our analyses at the time of listing. In sum, because the analysis of all factors influencing the species has already been completed to inform the listing determination, we anticipate the development of species-specific protective regulations addressing these same factors concurrently will be more efficient. As discussed in our 2019 rule, we intend to review existing species-specific 4(d) rules that could be used as a model or applied to the species in question. For example, the Service has existing species-specific 4(d) rules for certain threatened fish species, which are found at 50 CFR 17.44(a), (c) and (h), that include protective regulations for multiple species. Where appropriate, the Service adds additional listed species of fish to the appropriate rule. This approach would be beneficial when there are species with similar threats or that occur in a similar geographic area, or species with similar life histories or similar biological needs. Therefore, in these situations, developing species-specific regulations will not be as time consuming or burdensome as the commenters predict because the Service will be able to rely on existing regulatory language. Similar examples include the Service's existing species-specific 4(d) rules for Mazama pocket gophers (50 CFR 17.40(a)), crocodilians (50 CFR 17.42(c)), and stoneflies (50 CFR 17.47(c)). Regardless of whether we ultimately add a new species to an existing regulation in the CFR, we will always conduct individual analyses for each species and make species-specific necessary and advisable determinations. As previously discussed, we also anticipate that while promulgating species-specific 4(d) rules for every threatened species may require additional Service resources at the time of listing, tailored species-specific protections ultimately provide regulatory time-savings for us, our conservation partners and the regulated community, and lead to better species conservation. Of the currently listed threatened species, approximately 48 percent of wildlife species and 6 percent of plant species are protected with species-specific 4(d) rules. Comment 5: Several commenters suggested that when using the “blanket rule” protections, threatened species were treated the same as endangered species. Some indicated this resulted in overprotection and supported removal of “blanket rules” to reinstate meaning to the distinction between endangered species and threatened species, and others supported the similar treatment and supported maintaining “blanket rules.” Some commenters support removing automatic protections for endangered species as well. Response: The “blanket rules” do not treat threatened species exactly the same as endangered species. The Act's section 9(a) prohibitions that apply to an endangered species also apply to a threatened species protected by a “blanket rule,” however, the “blanket rules” also include broader exceptions to prohibitions than those included in our regulations for endangered species. Our endangered species regulations include a suite of exceptions, which allow for various entities to conduct otherwise prohibited acts without a permit under the Act ( e.g., any person may take endangered wildlife in defense of their own life or the lives of others; Federal and State law enforcement officers may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any endangered wildlife taken in violation of the Act as necessary in performing their official duties; certain individuals can take wildlife to aid, salvage, or dispose of endangered species). Protections for threatened species under the “blanket rules” also include these standard exceptions; however, because threatened species are not in danger of extinction but are likely to become so within the foreseeable future, we provided additional flexibility for managing threatened species. At 50 CFR 17.31(b) and 17.71(b), the exceptions are more numerous and broader than those for endangered species. These include additional exceptions for the FWS to conduct conservation actions such as habitat restoration that would cause “take” that would otherwise be prohibited under the Act without a permit. These provisions also include broader exceptions for agents or employees of State conservation agencies operating a conservation program in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act to conduct actions otherwise prohibited without a permit. Additionally, the general threatened species permitting provisions promulgated under the authority of section 4(d) at 50 CFR 17.32(a) provide broader issuance criteria and require less process than endangered species permitting provisions at 50 CFR 17.22(a) promulgated under the authority of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, which also require compliance with section 10(c), section 10(d), and 50 CFR 17.22(d). With regard to the comment about removing automatic protections for endangered species, section 9(a) of the Act prescribes the prohibitions for endangered species. We cannot alter these prohibitions through regulatory revisions. Comment 6: We received a few comments on topics that were not specifically addressed in our proposed regulatory amendment but instead focus on issues that may arise during implementation of this rulemaking. These included recommendations for future guidance documents or for consideration when developing individual species-specific 4(d) rules. Response: The Service appreciates these comments and suggestions on developing species-specific 4(d) rules. While that input may inform the development of future species-specific 4(d) rules, policies, or guidance, those comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. To the extent commenters raised questions about the substance of future species-specific 4(d) rules that have not been proposed, we urge commenters to provide this feedback as applicable in the development of future species-specific 4(d) rules. Comment 7: Multiple commenters stated that aligning our approach with NMFS is not a valid argument for rescinding the “blanket rules.” Some commenters pointed out that the FWS is responsible for many more species than NMFS and we may experience delays in crafting species-specific rules due to the higher administrative burden. Commenters also asserted that there is no good reason why alignment with NMFS is necessary or beneficial as the agencies have had different approaches for decades without issues and this is not mandated by the Act. Some commenters stated that the NMFS approach does not provide a model of efficacy to justify FWS alignment, because NMFS does not consistently promulgate species-specific 4(d) rules for threatened species. Commenters suggested that NMFS should instead adopt the “blanket rule” if consistency between the agencies is the goal. Other commenters supported aligning our approach with NMFS and suggested that NMFS has demonstrated success in implementing species-specific rules given their higher recovery rates of species than the Service despite not using the “blanket rules.” Response: As noted above, Executive Orders and S.O. 3418 provided the impetus for our rulemaking; because the “blanket rule” was exclusive to FWS, NMFS did not participate in this rulemaking. Comments asserting actions NMFS should take are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. We are removing the potential for default application of the “blanket rules” as our preferred policy approach and recognize this will align our practice with NMFS for future threatened species listings. Comment 8: Some commenters raised concerns regarding the ability of the Service to implement U.S. treaty obligations for threatened species that are also listed on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendices. One of the commenters raised concerns about complicating permitting and confusing the regulated community by setting different standards for different threatened species listed at different times and about reducing the ability to prohibit and place permitting requirements on the import of foreign threatened species listed on the CITES Appendices. The commenter noted that CITES specifically allows countries to have such so-called “stricter domestic measures” beyond those required by CITES. They believe the conservation of the species necessitates the added scrutiny provided through administering ESA import permit requirements for threatened species by the United States, and they fear that eliminating the “blanket rules” for future threatened species listings will reduce the conservation benefit of the ESA to CITES implementation. Another commenter expressed concern that if ESA protections relating to prohibitions on import, export, and trade under section 9(a) are not applied to threatened species in the United States by default, the United States would be unable to prohibit trade contrary to the requirements of CITES. Response: This rulemaking does not affect the ability of the Service to implement U.S. treaty obligations for species listed on the CITES Appendices that are also threatened species under the Act. The purpose of CITES is to regulate international trade in plants and animals to ensure such trade is legal and does not threaten the survival of species in the wild. The ESA, in part, implements CITES and its Appendices of CITES-listed species into U.S. law (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(4), 1537a, 1538(c), 1540; 50 CFR part 23). Separately, the ESA also provides Federal protection to species listed as endangered or threatened pursuant to section 4 of the ESA. As the commenter notes, Parties to the Convention may enact stricter domestic measures over the conditions of trade in CITES specimens, making CITES “a floor, not a ceiling, for protection” of CITES species (see Safari Club Int'l v. Zinke, 878 F.3d 316, 321-322 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (citing CITES Art. XIV(1), 27 U.S.T. at 1108)). The listing of endangered species and threatened species and protections afforded thereto by the ESA are an example of a stricter domestic measure. The listing of a species as endangered or threatened under the ESA does not depend on whether or how it is listed under CITES and vice versa (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(6), 1532(20), 1533(a)(1), 1533(d), 1538(a); 50 CFR part 17; 50 CFR part 424). The two legal regimes have separate lists of protected wildlife (compare 50 CFR 23.91, 23.7, CITES Appendices (available at https://cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php ) with 50 CFR 17.11-17.12 (ESA lists), 16 U.S.C. 1533(c)). The two legal regimes have separate listing processes and species are listed pursuant to separate criteria (compare CITES Art. II, XV, XVI; CITES Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP17) on Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II (available at https://cites.org/eng/res/index.php ); 50 CFR 23.89, 23.87 with 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)-(b); 50 CFR part 424). The prohibitions that attach to CITES species and ESA species under the ESA are also separate (compare CITES Arts. II(4), VIII; 16 U.S.C. 1538(c); 50 CFR 23.13 (CITES species prohibitions) with 16 U.S.C. 1538(a), 1533(d); 50 CFR 17.21, 17.31, 17.61, 17.71 (ESA species prohibitions)). The permitting processes for CITES species and ESA species under the ESA are also separate (compare CITES Arts. III-VII; 16 U.S.C. 1537a; 50 CFR part 23 (CITES species permitting provisions) with 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)-(d), 1533(d); 50 CFR 17.22, 17.32, 17.62, 17.72 (ESA species permitting provisions)). In short, a species may be listed under either, both, or neither the CITES Appendices and the ESA lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. The commenter is also incorrect that removal of the future use of the “blanket rule” option and use of species-specific 4(d) rules for future threatened listings would preclude prohibiting the import of threatened species. If a species-specific 4(d) rule prohibits import, then an import permit is required unless the species-specific 4(d) rule provides a separate exception. See Safari Club Int'l v. Zinke, 878 F.3d 316, 328-29 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (“[s]ection 9(c)(2) in no way constrains... section 4(d) authority to condition the importation of threatened Appendix-II species. . .”); see also 71 FR 20168 at 20170-20171, April 19, 2006; 72 FR 48402 at 48404-48405, August 23, 2007. To the extent that the commenter is referring to section 9(c)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.8, which provides an import exemption for qualifying imports of threatened species that are CITES Appendix-II wildlife, nothing in this rulemaking affects the operation of 50 CFR 17.8. As a result, these provisions continue to provide the limited exception to the § 17.31(a) prohibition against the importation of threatened wildlife for species that are currently subject to the provisions of the “blanket rule” and that are also included in CITES Appendix II (provided that the other requirements of 50 CFR 17.8(b) are also met). Comment 9: One commenter suggested that nearly all zoos are impacted by ESA regulations including the current “blanket rules.” They suggest that under the current rule, zoos holding threatened species are required to go through burdensome, costly and unreasonably lengthy permitting processes. They suggest the “blanket rules” are overly burdensome and inefficient and not consistent with the congressional intent of the ESA to impose the enhancement and other permitting requirements applicable to species that are listed as threatened because they do not have a species-specific 4(d) rule. Response: The commenter suggests that “blanket rules” and species-specific rules include different permit processes or standards to obtain a permit for an otherwise prohibited act. For both threatened species protected by “blanket rules” and threatened species protected by species-specific rules, we issue permits pursuant to our general threatened species permitting regulations at 50 CFR 17.32 (wildlife) or 17.72 (plants) unless we specifically state otherwise in the species-specific rule (see 50 CFR 17.31(c) and 50 CFR 17.71(c)). The revisions in this final rule do not change the permitting regulations at 50 CFR 17.32 or 17.72. State Protections Comment 10: A commenter requested that we clarify that section 4(d) rules are not intended to serve as a general compensatory mitigation authority and that any mitigation requirements under section 4(d) must be directly tied to conserving the species, not broader landscape policy goals. The commenter also requested that we indicate that where States have existing mitigation frameworks already in place, such as Wyoming, the Service should defer to the State management scheme that provides a structured mechanism for addressing certain impacts. The commenter suggested that any future section 4(d) rules should complement, not duplicate or conflict with, those frameworks. Response: Species-specific 4(d) rules are one of the tools that contribute to the conservation of threatened species. Species-specific 4(d) rules do not serve as a general compensatory mitigation authority. As part of the promulgation of these rules, we must determine that the rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species which is informed by the consideration of conservation and economic impacts as described in 50 CFR 17.31(d) and 50 CFR 17.71(d). In promulgating species-specific 4(d) rules, we consider existing conservation efforts and regulatory protections and may incorporate these actions in our species-specific 4(d) rules as appropriate. Further, we recognize the authorities given to States in section 6 of the Act to conserve listed species and the partnership with the Service and States in conserving federally listed species. As stated in our “Revised Interagency Cooperative Policy Regarding the Role of State Agencies in Endangered Species Act Activities” (81 FR 8663, February 22, 2016), it is our practice to coordinate and collaborate with State agencies in developing the scientific foundation upon which the Service bases determinations for listing actions, including 4(d) rules that specify the prohibitions necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as threatened. We note that the preemptive effect of the Act and implementing regulations in part 17 with regard to State laws for endangered species or threatened species is pursuant to section 6(f) of the Act (see 16 U.S.C. 1535(f); the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution; H.J. Justin & Sons, Inc. v. Deukmejian, 702 F.2d 758, 759-60 (9th Cir. 1983); Man Hing Ivory & Imports, Inc. v. Deukmejian, 702 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1983); Cresenzi Bird Importers, Inc. v. New York, 658 F. Supp. 1441, 1444-46 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), summarily aff'd, 831 F.2d 410 (2d Cir. 1987)). Comment 11: One commenter expressed concern that adopting the practice of promulgating species-specific rules for each new listing would supersede the existing rule that provides States the authority to manage threatened species consistent with section 6 of the Act. They noted that each rule would go through a public process, opening it up for challenges on a case-by-case basis and suggested that over time, this practice may erode States' ability to conserve and recover imperiled species while significantly increasing workload and costs of implementation. They suggested additional regulation revisions to ensure that, at a minimum, States' level of management effectiveness that exists now ( e.g., under 50 CFR 17.31) be maintained. Response: As previously mentioned, we recognize the authorities given to States in section 6 of the Act to conserve listed species and the partnership among the Service and the States in conserving federally listed species. We made revisions to our regulations (50 CFR 17.31(c) and 17.71(c)) in 2024 that clarified that our exceptions at 50 CFR 17.31(b) and 17.71(b) providing State conservation agencies the authority to “take” threatened species when carrying out conservation programs always apply unless a species-specific 4(d) rule specifically prohibits that exception (89 FR 23919, April 5, 2024). Therefore, for all threatened species currently protected by species-specific rules and any threatened species protected by a species-specific rule in the future, State agencies with a section 6 cooperative agreement do not require permits under the Act for take of those threatened species while operating a conservation program pursuant to the terms of an approved cooperative agreement unless we specifically state otherwise in the associated rule. With regard to the comment about a public process, we are required to follow APA notice and comment procedures for all 4(d) rules. There is no change regarding this requirement as a result of this final rulemaking. Comment 12: Commenters oppose the removal of the “blanket rules” because they suggest it could lead to inconsistent protections of threatened species across States, increasing extinction risk of species. Response: The Act requires that the Service issue protective regulations under section 4(d) that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. While we may develop species-specific 4(d) rules with protections that vary across a species' range, this would be due to varying degrees of threats for the species and in line with the conservation needs of the species. We therefore do not foresee a risk of inconsistencies in threatened species protections across States, unless the best scientific and commercial data available indicates that certain protections should be tailored to a specific geographic area, with rationale provided within the species-specific 4(d) rulemaking. Blanket Rule Option Comment 13: Multiple commenters remarked on whether “blanket rules” are legal under the Act, whether they are the best interpretation of the Act, and whether they are consistent with congressional intent. Some commenters suggested that the “blanket rules” are unlawful because the statutory language and legislative history indicate that Congress intended for the protections for threatened species to differ from, and be more flexible than, the protections for endangered species, as well as for the Service to develop a separate and individualized set of protective regulations for each threatened species. Commenters also suggested that use of a “blanket rule” option is inconsistent with the best reading of the Act as required by Loper Bright and that the Service may only issue protective regulations for threatened species—including those prohibiting take—on a species-by-species basis, and only after determining that such regulation is “necessary and advisable for the conservation” of that species. Commenters noted that prior to Loper Bright, and analyzed under the Chevron framework ( Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)) in which Federal courts defer to administrative agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes), at least one court upheld a “reasonable and permissible” reading of the ESA to allow for “blanket rules” ( Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Greater Oregon v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1993), modified on other grounds on reh'g, 17 F.3d 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 (1995) (hereafter, “ Sweet Home” )). However, they suggest this is not necessarily what a court would determine under Loper Bright. On the other hand, other commenters viewed the “blanket rules” as lawful (citing to Sweet Home ) and consistent with congressional intent. These commenters pointed out that we previously explained how “blanket rules” further the purposes of the Act by allowing the Service to protect species quickly without having to develop a new set of regulat