Industry and Security Bureau
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Indian Gaming Commission
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
This regulation is effective October 31, 2025. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 30, 2025 and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0621, is available at
Shannon Borges, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511M), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-1400; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA is issuing this rulemaking under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .”
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified in the final rule, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0621 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 30, 2025.
EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), in which the Hearing Clerk is housed, urges parties to file and serve documents by electronic means only, notwithstanding any other particular requirements set forth in other procedural rules governing those proceedings.
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket at
In the
Based upon review of data and other information supporting the petition, EPA modified the active ingredient name from
EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on
The toxicological profile of
EPA determined that no additional margin of safety is necessary to protect infants and children as part of the qualitative assessment conducted, as data and rationale demonstrated that there are no threshold levels of concern with the toxicity, pathogenicity or infectivity of
Based upon its evaluation in the
An analytical method is not required for
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it establishes or modifies a pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because actions that establish a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
This action is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) 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 as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because 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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (See Unit IV.A.), and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
However, EPA's 2021 Policy on Children's Health applies to this action. This rule finalizes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under the FFDCA, which requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance exemption and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C)). The Agency's consideration is documented in Unit III.A.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355) (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notification of review.
In this candidate notice of review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or FWS), present an updated list of plant and animal species that we regard as candidates for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2024. Combined with other decisions for individual species that were published separately from this CNOR in the past two years, the current number of species that are candidates for listing or uplisting is 16 (as of September 30, 2024). Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, and by allowing landowners, resource managers, States, Tribes, range countries, and other stakeholders to take actions to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting earlier candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species.
We are publishing this document on October 31, 2025. We will accept information on any of the species in this document at any time.
This document is available on the internet at
Species assessment forms with information and references on a particular candidate species' range, status, habitat needs, and listing priority assignment are available for review on our website (
For foreign species: Rachel London, Manager, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-1961. For domestic species: Caitlin Snyder, Chief, Branch of Domestic Listing, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (telephone: 703-358-1961). 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.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: (1) To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their survival; (2) to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; (3) to provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make listing unnecessary; (4) to request input from interested parties to help us identify those candidate species that may not require protection under the Act, as well as additional species that may require the Act's protections; and (5) to request necessary information for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We encourage collaborative conservation efforts for candidate species and offer technical and financial assistance to facilitate such efforts. For additional information regarding such
We have been publishing CNORs since 1975. The most recent was published on June 27, 2023 (88 FR 41560). CNORs published since 1994 are available on our website at
On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning a listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). Section 4(h)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to establish guidelines for such a priority-ranking system. As explained below, in using this system, we first categorize based on the magnitude of the threat(s), then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and finally by taxonomic status.
Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be either “high” or “moderate to low.” This criterion helps ensure that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued existence receive the highest listing priority. All candidate species face threats to their continued existence, so the magnitude of threats is in relative terms. For all candidate species, the threats are of sufficiently high magnitude to put them in danger of extinction or make them likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. However, for species with higher magnitude threats, the threats have a greater likelihood of bringing about extinction or are expected to bring about extinction on a shorter timescale (once the threats are imminent) than for species with lower magnitude threats. Because we do not routinely quantify how likely or how soon extinction would be expected to occur absent listing, we must evaluate factors that contribute to the likelihood and time scale for extinction. We, therefore, consider information such as: (1) The number of populations or extent of range of the species affected by the threat(s), or both; (2) the biological significance of the affected population(s), taking into consideration the life-history characteristics of the species and its current abundance and distribution; (3) whether the threats affect the species in only a portion of its range, and, if so, the likelihood of persistence of the species in the unaffected portions; (4) the severity of the effects and the rapidity with which they have caused or are likely to cause mortality to individuals and accompanying declines in population levels; (5) whether the effects are likely to be permanent; and (6) the extent to which any ongoing conservation efforts reduce the severity of the threat(s).
As used in our priority-ranking system, immediacy of threat is categorized as either “imminent” or “nonimminent,” and is based on when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for listing proposals over species for which threats are only potential or species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats but are not known to be presently facing such threats.
Our priority-ranking system has three categories for taxonomic status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct population segments of vertebrate species (DPSs).
The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12. For example, if the threats are of high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the listable entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status (
For more information on the process and standards used in assigning LPNs, a copy of the 1983 guidance is available at:
Since publication of the previous CNOR on June 27, 2023 (88 FR 41560), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to each species. We also evaluated the need to emergency list any of these species, particularly species with higher priorities (
In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the last CNOR, we have worked on findings in response to petitions to list species, on proposed rules to list species under the Act, and on final listing determinations. Some of these findings and determinations have been completed and published in the
Combined with other findings and determinations published separately from this CNOR, as of September 30, 2024, 16 candidate species are awaiting preparation of a proposed listing rule or “not-warranted” finding. Table 5 (below) identifies these 16 candidate species, along with the 56 species proposed for listing (including one species proposed for listing due to similarity of appearance) as of September 30, 2024.
Table 6 (below) lists the changes for species identified in the previous CNOR and includes 48 species identified in the previous CNOR as either proposed for listing or classified as candidates that are no longer in those categories because we have published a final listing rule.
The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing. One method allows the Secretary, on the Secretary's own initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of section 4(a)(1). The second method
First, the CNOR serves as an initial 12-month finding in some instances. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, when we receive a petition to list a species, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted (a “90-day finding”). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly commence a status review of the species under section 4(b)(3)(A), and then, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B), we must make, within 12 months of the receipt of the petition, one of the following three possible findings (a “12-month finding”):
(1) The petitioned action is not warranted, in which case we must promptly publish the finding in the
(2) The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we must promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the petitioned action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the Act govern further procedures, regardless of whether or not we issued the proposal in response to a petition); or
(3) The petitioned action is warranted, but (a) the immediate proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the Lists and to remove from the Lists species for which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary. We refer to this third option as a “warranted-but-precluded finding,” and after making such a finding, we must promptly publish it in the
We define “candidate species” to mean those species for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded by higher priority listing actions (61 FR 64481; December 5, 1996). The standard for making a species a candidate through our own initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding on a petition to list.
Therefore, all candidate species identified through our own initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, if we receive a petition to list a species that we have already identified as a candidate, we review the status of the newly petitioned candidate species and in a CNOR publish specific section 4(b)(3) findings (
Second, the CNOR serves as a “resubmitted” petition finding. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act requires that when we make a warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition, we treat the petition as one that is resubmitted on the date of the finding. Thus, we must make a 12-month petition finding for each such species at least once a year in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, until we publish a proposal to list the species or make a final not-warranted finding. We make these annual resubmitted petition findings through the CNOR. To the extent these annual findings differ from the initial 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding or any of the resubmitted petition findings in previous CNORs, they supersede the earlier findings, although all previous findings are part of the administrative record for the new finding, and in the new finding, we may rely upon them or include them by reference as appropriate, in addition to explaining why the finding has changed. We have identified the candidate species for which we received petitions and made a continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted petition by the code “C” in the category column on the left side of table 5, below.
Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act requires us to implement a system to monitor effectively the status of all species for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding and to make prompt use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) to prevent a significant risk to the well-being of any such species. The CNOR plays a crucial role in the monitoring system that we have implemented for all candidate species by providing notice that we are actively seeking information regarding the status of those species. We review all new information on candidate species as it becomes available, prepare an annual species assessment form that reflects monitoring results and other new information, and identify any species for which emergency listing may be appropriate. If we determine that emergency listing is appropriate for any candidate, we will make prompt use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and specificity of information that we must consider in making and describing the petition findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions in further detail. As with previous CNORs, we continue to incorporate information of the nature and specificity required by the courts. For example, we include a description of the reasons why the listing of every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. Our preclusion determinations are further based upon our budget for listing activities for non-listed species only, and we explain the priority system and why the work we have accomplished has precluded action on listing candidate species.
In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and threats to, the 14 candidate species for which we have received a petition to list where we found the action warranted but precluded and 2 species for which we continue to find uplisting warranted but precluded. We find that the immediate issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for each of these species has been, for the preceding months, and continues to be, precluded by higher priority listing actions. Summaries for the monarch butterfly and Rio Grande cutthroat trout are not included in this CNOR, as a proposed
The immediate publication of proposed rules to list or uplist these species was precluded by our work on higher priority listing actions, listed below, during the period from October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2024. Below, we describe the actions that continue to preclude the immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation implementing each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious progress we are making to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the Lists. We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to emergency list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. As described above, under section 4 of the Act, we identify and propose species for listing based on the factors identified in section 4(a)(1)—either on our own initiative or through the mechanism that section 4 provides for the public to petition us to add species to the Lists of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
To make a finding that a particular action is warranted but precluded, the Service must make two determinations: (1) That the immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened; and (2) that expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to either of the Lists and to remove species from the Lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)).
A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have sufficient resources available to complete the proposal because there are competing demands for those resources and the relative priority of those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed listing regulation or whether promulgation of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions—(1) the amount of resources available for completing the listing-related function; (2) the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing regulation; and (3) the Service's workload, along with the Service's prioritization of the proposed listing regulation, in relation to other actions in its workload.
The resources available for listing-related actions are determined through the annual congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended for the Listing Program (spending cap). This spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from depleting funds needed for other functions under the Act (for example, recovery functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for other Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and final rules to add species to the Lists or to change the status of species from threatened to endangered; 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists or to change the status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual “resubmitted” petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat petition findings; proposed rules designating critical habitat or final critical habitat determinations; and litigation-related, administrative, and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat).
For more than two decades, the size and cost of the workload in these categories of actions have far exceeded the amount of funding available to the Service under the spending cap for completing listing and critical habitat actions under the Act. As we cannot exceed the spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)), each year we have been compelled to determine that work on at least some actions was precluded by work on higher priority actions. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first, and because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. Through the listing cap and the amount of funds needed to complete court-mandated actions within the cap, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money remaining (after completing court-mandated actions) for listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds that remain within the listing cap—after paying for work needed to comply with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements—set the framework within which we make our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
For FY 2023, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328, December 29, 2022), Congress appropriated $23,398,000 for all domestic and foreign listing work. For FY 2024, through the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-42, March 9, 2024), Congress appropriated $22,000,000 for all domestic and foreign listing work. The amount of funding Congress will appropriate in future years is uncertain.
The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive, and may include, but is not limited to: gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; requesting peer and partner review on our analyses that support listing decisions and incorporating those comments, as appropriate; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant information from those comments into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more costly. Our practice of proposing to designate critical habitat concurrently with listing domestic species requires additional coordination and an analysis of the economic impacts of the designation, and thus adds to the complexity and cost of our work. Completing all of the outstanding listing and critical habitat actions has for so long required more funding than is available within the spending cap that the Service has developed several ways to prioritize its workload actions under the Act and to identify the work it can complete with the available funding for listing and critical habitat actions each year.
The Service's Listing Program workload is broadly composed of four types of actions, which the Service prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations or critical habitat
In previous years, the Service received many new petitions, including multiple petitions to list numerous species—in one example, a single petition sought to list 404 domestic species. The emphasis that petitioners placed on seeking listing for hundreds of species at a time through the petition process significantly increased the number of actions within the third category of our workload—actions that have absolute statutory deadlines for making findings on those petitions. In addition, the necessity of dedicating all of the Listing Program funding towards determining the status of 251 candidate species and complying with other court-ordered requirements between 2011 and 2016 added to the number of petition findings awaiting action. Because we are not able to work on all of these actions at once, the Service's most recent effort to prioritize its workload focuses on addressing the backlog in petition findings that has resulted from the influx of large multi-species petitions and the 5-year period in which the Service was compelled to suspend making 12-month findings for most of those petitions. The number of petitions awaiting status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings illustrates the considerable extent of this backlog. As a result of the outstanding petitions to list hundreds of species, and our efforts to make initial petition findings within 90 days of receiving the petition to the maximum extent practicable, at the beginning of FY 2024 we had 289 12-month petition findings yet to be completed.
To determine the relative priorities of the outstanding 12-month petition findings, the Service developed a prioritization methodology (methodology) (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016), after providing the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on the draft methodology (81 FR 2229; January 15, 2016). Under the methodology, we assign each 12-month finding to one of five priority bins: (1) The species is critically imperiled; (2) strong data are already available about the status of the species; (3) new science is underway that would inform key uncertainties about the status of the species; (4) conservation efforts are in development or underway and likely to address the status of the species; or (5) the available data on the species are limited. As a general matter, 12-month findings with a lower bin number have a higher priority than, and are scheduled before, 12-month findings with a higher bin number. However, we make some limited exceptions—for example, we may schedule a lower priority finding earlier if batching it with a higher priority finding would generate efficiencies. We may also consider whether there are any special circumstances whereby an action should be moved up (or down) in scheduling. For example, one limitation that might result in divergence from priority order is when the current highest priorities are clustered in a geographic area, such that our scientific expertise at the field office level is fully occupied with their existing workload. We recognize that the geographic distribution of our scientific expertise will in some cases require us to balance workload across geographic areas. Since before Congress first established the spending cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the Listing Program workload has required considerably more resources than the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing Program. Therefore, it is important that we be as efficient as possible in our listing process.
After finalizing the prioritization methodology, we then applied that methodology to develop multiyear workplans for domestic and foreign species for completing the outstanding status assessments and accompanying 12-month findings, along with other outstanding work such as designating critical habitat and acting on the status of candidate species.
The purpose of the National Listing Workplan (Workplan) is to provide transparency and predictability to the public about when the Service anticipates completing specific 12-month findings for domestic species while allowing for flexibility to update the Workplan when new information changes the priorities. In April 2023 and May 2024, the Service released updated Workplans for addressing the Act's domestic listing and critical habitat decisions over the subsequent 5 years. The updated May 2024 Workplan identified the Service's schedule for addressing the two domestic species on the candidate list and conducting 225 status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings by FY 2028 for domestic species that have been petitioned for Federal protections under the Act. The National Listing Workplan is available online at:
Similar to the National Listing Workplan, the Foreign Species Workplan provides the Service's multiyear schedule for addressing our foreign species listing workload. The Foreign Species Workplan provides transparency and predictability to the public about when the Service anticipates completing specific 12-month findings and candidate species while allowing for flexibility to update the Foreign Species Workplan when new information changes the priorities. In June 2023, the Service released its Foreign Species Workplan for addressing the Act's foreign listing decisions over the subsequent 5 years. A more recent Foreign Species Workplan was published in November 2024; however, this CNOR addresses the time period of October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2024, so for the purposes of this CNOR, we reference the June 2023 version. The Foreign Species Workplan identifies the Service's prioritization for addressing the 14 foreign species on the candidate list and 48 status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings for petitioned species, and it identifies which actions we plan to complete by FY 2029. As we implement our Foreign Species Workplan and work on 12-month findings and proposed rules for the highest priority species, we increase efficiency by preparing multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats as one of the highest priority species. The Foreign Species Workplan is available online at:
For the 12-month findings, consistent with our prioritization methodology, within the five priority bins we determine the relative timing of foreign species actions using sub-ranking considerations,
1. FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) enforcement capacity;
2. Species in trade to or from the United States;
3. Species in trade through U.S. ports (
4. Within the United States, interstate trade;
5. Status under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); and
6. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List status.
An additional way in which we determine relative priorities of outstanding actions for species in the section 4 program is application of the listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983; see Previous CNORs, above). Proposed rules for listing foreign species, including foreign candidate species, are generally lower in priority than domestic listings because we generally have more resources and authorities to achieve higher conservation outcomes when listing domestic species. The Service has a responsibility to conserve both domestic and foreign species; however, our choice to dedicate the bulk of our funding cap to domestic actions is a rational one given the likelihood of obtaining better conservation outcomes for domestic species versus foreign species under the Act.
The Act makes no distinction between foreign species and domestic species in listing species as endangered or threatened. The protections of the Act generally apply to both listed foreign species and domestic species, and section 8 of the Act provides authorities for international cooperation on foreign species. However, some significant differences in the Service's authorities result in differences in our ability to affect conservation for foreign and domestic species under the Act. The major differences are that the Service has no regulatory jurisdiction over take of a listed species in a foreign country, or of trade in listed species outside the United States by persons not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (see 50 CFR 17.21). The Service also does not designate critical habitat within foreign countries or in other areas outside of the jurisdiction of the United States (50 CFR 424.12(g)).
Additionally, section 7 of the Act in part requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat, and to enter into consultation with the Service if a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat. An “action” that is subject to the consultation provisions of section 7(a)(2) is defined in our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402.02 as all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas. In view of this regulatory definition, foreign species are rarely subject to section 7 consultation, apart from consultations for permits issued under the Act. This differs from the considerable benefits section 7 affords to domestic species whose life cycle occurs in whole or in part in the United States, and for which we do designate critical habitat, which are routinely subject to section 7 consultations and the conservation benefits that result from those.
These differences in the Service's authorities for foreign and domestic species under the Act, including relating to take, critical habitat, and section 7 consultation, mean that listing foreign species is likely to have relatively less conservation effect than for domestic species. The protections of the Act through listing are likely to have their greatest conservation effect for foreign species that are in trade to, from, through, or within the United States. The majority (likely 12 out of the 14) of current foreign candidate species are not known to be in trade. Therefore, we made a rational decision to dedicate more resources to listing domestic species.
Additionally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species status to endangered species status (uplisting) are generally lower in priority because, as listed species, they are already afforded the protections of the Act and implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered species status if we can combine this action with higher priority work.
The National Listing Workplan that the Service released in 2024 outlined work for domestic species over the period from FY 2024 to FY 2028. The Foreign Species Workplan that the Service released in 2023 outlined work for foreign species over the period from FY 2024 to FY 2029. Tables 1 and 2 under
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. Please note that in the Code of Federal Regulations, the “Lists” are grouped as one list of endangered and threatened wildlife (see 50 CFR 17.11(h)) and one list of endangered and threatened plants (see 50 CFR 17.12(h)). However, the “Lists” referred to in the Act mean one list of endangered species (wildlife and plants) and one list of threatened species (wildlife and plants). For the purposes of evaluating our expeditious progress, when we refer to the “Lists,” we mean this latter grouping of one list of endangered species and one list of threatened species.
As with our “precluded” finding, the evaluation of whether expeditious progress is being made is a function of the resources available and the competing demands for those funds. As discussed earlier, the FY 2023 appropriations law appropriated $23,398,000 for all domestic and foreign listing activities, and the FY 2024 appropriations law appropriated $22,000,000 for all domestic and foreign listing activities.
As discussed below, given the limited resources available for listing, the competing demands for those funds, and the completed work catalogued in the tables below, we find that we are making expeditious progress to add qualified species to the Lists and to remove from the Lists species for which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary.
The work of the Service's domestic listing and foreign listing programs in FY 2023 and FY 2024 (as of September
First, we are making expeditious progress in identifying species that may warrant listing. In FY 2023 and FY 2024 (as of September 30, 2024), we completed 90-day findings on petitions to list 21 domestic species and 5 foreign species.
Second, we are making expeditious progress in evaluating the best scientific and commercial data available about species and threats they face (status reviews) to determine whether or not listing is warranted. In FY 2023 and FY 2024 (as of September 30, 2024), we completed 12-month findings for 99 domestic species and 1 foreign species. In addition, we initiated 12-month findings for 89 domestic species, 23 foreign species, and 2 candidates. Although we did not complete all of those actions during FY 2023 or FY 2024 (as of September 30, 2024), we made expeditious progress towards doing so by initiating and making progress on the status reviews to determine whether adding these species to the Lists is warranted.
Third, we are making expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the Lists. In FY 2023 and FY 2024 (as of September 30, 2024), we published final listing rules for 48 domestic species and 5 foreign species, including final critical habitat designations for 22 of those domestic species and final protective regulations under the Act's section 4(d) for 33 of those domestic species and 2 foreign species. In addition, we published proposed rules to list an additional 45 domestic species and 6 foreign species (including concurrent proposed critical habitat designations for 24 domestic species and concurrent protective regulations under the Act's section 4(d) for 15 domestic species and 1 foreign species).
Fourth, we are also making expeditious progress in removing (delisting) species, as well as reclassifying endangered species to threatened species status (downlisting). Delisting and downlisting actions are funded through the recovery line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. Thus, delisting and downlisting actions do not factor into our assessment of preclusion; that is, work on recovery actions does not preclude the availability of resources for completing new listing work. However, work on recovery actions does count towards our assessment of making expeditious progress because the Act states that expeditious progress includes both adding qualified species to, and removing qualified species from, the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. In FY 2023 and FY 2024 (as of September 30, 2024), we finalized downlisting rules for 6 domestic species with concurrent final protective regulations under the Act's section 4(d), finalized delisting rules for 34 domestic species, proposed delisting rules for 9 domestic species, and completed a 90-day finding for 1 domestic species.
The tables below catalog the Service's progress in FY 2023 and FY 2024 (as of September 30, 2024) as it pertains to our evaluation of preclusion and expeditious progress. Table 1 includes completed and published domestic and foreign listing actions. Table 2 includes domestic and foreign listing actions funded and initiated in previous fiscal years and in FY 2023 and FY 2024 that were not yet complete as of September 30, 2024. Table 3 includes completed and published proposed and final downlisting and delisting actions for domestic and foreign species.
Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress in adding and removing qualified species to and from the Lists is that we have made our actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the requirements of the Act and regulations and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are continually seeking ways to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, such as batching related actions together for publication. Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these efforts also contribute toward our expeditious progress in adding and removing qualified species to and from the Lists.
For all 14 candidates, we continue to find that listing is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this document. In the course of preparing proposed listing rules or not-warranted petition findings, we continue to monitor new information about these species' status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) of the Act in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to any of these species.
Below are updated summaries for 14 of the petitioned candidates for which we published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act and did not change the LPN. We note that species-specific discussions below are summaries. More detailed information is available in the associated species assessment forms, including information on relevant
In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions for which we made warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings within the past year as having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted-but-precluded finding. We are making continued warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings on the petitions for these species.
The Jamaican kite swallowtail (
The Jamaican kite swallowtail is restricted to limestone forests; breeding populations only occur in rare, dense stands of its only known larval host plant, black lancewood (
The primary threat to the Jamaican kite swallowtail is habitat loss and fragmentation. Forests were cleared for agriculture and timber extraction, and more recently for sapling cutting for yam sticks, fish pots, or charcoal. Additional threats include mining for limestone that is used for roadbuilding and bauxite production that is an important economic activity, and charcoal-making also carries the risk of fire. Only around 8 percent of the total land area of Jamaica is natural forest with minimal human disturbance. Collection and trade of the species occurred in the past. Currently, however, this threat may be negligible because of heavy fines under the Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act. Predation from native predators, including spiders, the Jamaican tody (
Since 2001, the Jamaican kite swallowtail has been protected under the Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act. The species is also included in their National Strategy and Action Plan on Biological Diversity. The two strongest subpopulations occur in protected areas, although habitat destruction within these areas continues. Since 1985, the Jamaican kite swallowtail has been categorized on IUCN's Red List as vulnerable, but the assessment is marked as “needs updating.” This species is not included in the Appendices to CITES or the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), the Jamaican kite swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the factors affecting the Jamaican kite swallowtail for this CNOR, we have determined that no change in LPN is warranted. Only five small subpopulations of the species are known, and as few as two of these subpopulations may presently be viable. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail (
The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail has a large range and was likely more widespread historically; however, it is currently restricted to higher elevations, 1,500 to 3,000 meters (m) (4,900 to 10,000 feet (ft)) above sea level, in the foothills of the Himalayan Mountains and other mountainous regions farther east. The species prefers undisturbed (primary) broad-leaved-evergreen forests or montane deciduous forests. Specific details on locations or population status are not readily available, and despite widespread distribution, populations are described as being local and never abundant.
Habitat destruction negatively affects this species. Comprehensive information on the rate of degradation of Himalayan forests containing the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is not available, but ongoing habitat loss is consistently reported as one of the primary threats to the species. In China and India, the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail populations are affected by habitat modification and destruction due to commercial and illegal logging, as well as clearing for agriculture in India. In Nepal, the species is affected by habitat disturbance and destruction resulting from mining, wood collection for use as fuel, deforestation, collection of fodders and fiber plants, forest fires, invasion of bamboo species into the oak forests, agriculture, and grazing animals. In Vietnam, the forest habitat is reportedly declining. Additionally, collection for commercial trade is also regarded as a threat to the species. The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is highly valued and has been collected and traded despite various prohibitions. Although it is difficult to assess the potential impacts from collection, the removal of individuals from the wild in combination with other stressors contributes to local extirpations.
In China, the species is protected by the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Wildlife. In India, the species is listed on Schedule II of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act. In Thailand, all butterflies in the genus
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to this species for this CNOR, we have determined that no change in its LPN of 8 is warranted. The species has a wide distribution, although populations are local and never abundant. Habitat loss and collection are expected to continue in the future. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
The black-backed tanager (
The black-backed tanager is generally restricted in range and is associated with sand forest “restinga” habitat, which is a coastal component habitat of the greater Atlantic Forest complex of Brazil. The black-backed tanager is generally considered not rare within suitable habitat, with periodic local fluctuations in numbers owing to seasonal movements. The species is described as a regional migrant and is one of just a few tanagers known to migrate seasonally within the coastal Atlantic Forest region of Brazil. The best available information indicates the range is severely fragmented, consisting of approximately 316,000 square kilometers (km
The primary factor affecting this species is the rapid and widespread loss and fragmentation of habitat, mainly due to urban expansion and beachfront development. Much of the species' suitable habitat in Rio de Janeiro and Paraná has been destroyed. As much as 88 to 95 percent of the area historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been lost or severely degraded as the result of human activities. Intact lowland forest, restinga, and mangrove habitat used by resident black-backed tanagers on the northern part of Santa Catarina Island (in the state of Santa Catarina) is unprotected, making the species vulnerable to extirpation on the island as development looms. Sea-level rise may alter the regional vegetation and structure and exacerbate the threat of habitat loss from ongoing coastal development.
The black-backed tanager is classified as vulnerable by the IUCN. The species is also listed as vulnerable in Brazil and protected by law. It is not included in the Appendices to CITES, although it has infrequently been illegally sold in the pet trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), we assigned the black-backed tanager an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information for this CNOR, we have determined that no change to an LPN is warranted. The magnitude of threats to the black-backed tanager is moderate, based on its likely decreasing population size and widespread and ongoing habitat loss, although a recent evaluation of its population size is lacking. Small portions of the species' range occur in six protected areas, but these areas are not effectively protected. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
The Bogotá rail (
The rail is found in savanna and páramo (high-elevation habitats above tree line) marshes surrounding Bogotá, Colombia, on the Ubaté-Bogotá Plateau. The species relies on specific vegetation in wetland and lakeshore habitats at high elevations in the eastern flank of the eastern Andean mountain range of Colombia. The bird requires vegetation associated with these habitats for breeding and foraging. As of 2016, the population was estimated between 1,000 and 2,500 individuals, and the estimated extent of the resident/breeding habitat was 11,200 km
The primary threat to the rail is habitat loss and degradation of wetlands. Suitable habitat for the Bogotá rail occurs around the most populated area in Colombia with approximately 11 million people in the greater Bogotá metropolitan area. Wetlands in the area cover only approximately 3 percent of their historical extent. Although portions of the Bogotá rail's range occur in protected areas such as Chingaza National Park and Carpanta Biological Reserve, most savanna wetlands are virtually unprotected. Ongoing threats to remaining major wetlands include encroachment of human infrastructure and agriculture that causes loss of habitat and altered water levels, soil erosion, eutrophication caused by untreated effluent and agrochemicals, hunting, wildfire, and incidental spread of invasive species.
The Bogotá rail is listed as endangered by IUCN. The species is not known to be in international trade and is not included in the Appendices to CITES.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), the Bogotá rail was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to this species for this CNOR, we have determined that
The Brasília tapaculo (
The Brasília tapaculo's core habitat is dense, narrow strips of swampy gallery forests at elevations of approximately 800-1,000 m (2,600-3,300 ft). The species' range is located within six protected areas within the Cerrado and is not found outside protected areas. The Brasília tapaculo is described as rare, and the population size is unknown. However, the population is assumed to be declining because of the ongoing decline of the species' gallery forest habitat.
The primary threat to the Brasília tapaculo is ongoing habitat loss and fragmentation from agricultural activities. The Cerrado is the largest, most diverse, and possibly most threatened tropical savanna in the world. Land is converted for intensive grazing and mechanized agriculture, mostly for soybean production. Agriculture causes direct effects to gallery forests from wetland drainage and diversion of water for irrigation, as well as burning to create space. The species' habitat has been less directly affected by clearing for agriculture than the surrounding Cerrado. However, it is unclear how much core gallery forest has been destroyed because of habitat conversion for agriculture. Additionally, changes in precipitation and temperature patterns may also be negatively altering the Cerrado and reducing the amount of specialized habitat for the species.
The IUCN lists the species as endangered, and the Brazilian Red List assessed the species as endangered, because the species' small, fragmented range is continuing to decline in area and quality. International trade is not a significant threat to the species, and the species is not included in the Appendices to CITES.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), we assigned the Brasília tapaculo an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information for this CNOR, we have determined that no change to an LPN is warranted. The species occurs in only a handful of small, protected areas, and is reported as rare. Habitat conversion is ongoing. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
The Chatham Islands oystercatcher (
Chatham Islands oystercatchers are restricted to the coasts, mainly occurring along rocky shores, including wide volcanic rock platforms, and occasionally on sandy or gravelly beaches. Humans inhabit the two largest islands, Chatham and Pitt Islands, while South East and Mangere Islands are uninhabited nature reserves. Isolated pairs may also breed on other smaller islands in the archipelago. The population of the species is approximately 250 mature individuals. The Chatham Islands oystercatcher uses its long, sturdy bill to hammer open mollusks from rocky shores and to probe and peck for worms and other small invertebrates in sand, gravel, or tidal debris. Pairs occupy their breeding and feeding territories all year, and females lay clutches of one to three eggs in scrape nests (shallow-rimmed depressions in soil or vegetation) on sandy beaches, or among rocks above the shoreline. Mean longevity has been estimated at 7.7 years, and the oldest banded bird lived more than 30 years.
Predation of eggs and chicks (and to a lesser extent, predation of adults) is likely the primary threat to the Chatham Islands oystercatcher. Mangere and South East Islands are free of all mammalian predators; nonnative mammalian predators inhabit Chatham and Pitt Islands. Feral cats are the most common predator of oystercatcher eggs. Trampling of nests by livestock (sheep and cattle) and humans has been noted on beaches. Additionally, nonnative Marram grass (
The species has experienced a three-fold increase in its population since the first reliable census was conducted in 1987. Most of this increase occurred during a period of intensive management, especially predator control, from 1998 through 2004. Some of these efforts continue at a reduced level because of a lack of resources but are still effective at reducing trampling, predation, and loss of nests/eggs. The Chatham Island Oystercatcher Recovery Plan guides conservation actions for the species. The New Zealand Department of Conservation lists the Chatham Islands oystercatcher as nationally critical, and it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act. It is classified as endangered on the IUCN Red List, and the species is not included in the Appendices to CITES and not known to be in international trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), the Chatham Islands oystercatcher was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information for this CNOR, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted. Although the
The Ghizo white-eye (
The Ghizo white-eye prefers old-growth forest patches that cover approximately 1 km
Habitat loss is the primary threat to the species. Logging, conversion of forest for agricultural purposes, and local resource extraction for firewood are the main causes for loss of old-growth and secondary-growth forests. Human population growth in the Solomon Islands has contributed to development on Ghizo Island, such as construction of temporary housing. Additionally, catastrophic events, such as the 2007 tsunami, degraded forested areas that were found less likely to support the species even 5 years later in 2012. Sea-level rise in the future and an increase in storms could result in coastal flooding and erosion, saltwater intrusion, and damage to inland habitats.
The IUCN Red List classifies this species as endangered. It is not included in the Appendices to CITES, and this species is not known to be in international trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), the Ghizo white-eye was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information for this CNOR, we find that no change in the LPN is warranted. The species has a small population size, and suitable habitat is declining. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
The helmeted woodpecker (
Helmeted woodpeckers prefer mature trees in old-growth tropical and subtropical semi-deciduous forests as well as in mixed deciduous-coniferous forests in the southern Atlantic Forest up to elevations of 1,000 m (3,280 ft). The species typically forages in the midstory of the tree canopy, pecking at wet bark and rotten wood. Its diet is not well known, but it has been observed eating insect larvae, ants, berries, and small fruit. The species seems to favor nesting cavities in dead or decaying trees. A portion of the nest cavities used by helmeted woodpeckers have partly covered openings that may help to conceal the cavities from predators.
The primary threat to the species is habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, which includes loss of nesting cavities. The Atlantic Forest biome has lost 88 to 95 percent of the tropical forests to human activities. Currently, less than 1 percent of the remaining Atlantic Forest is primary forest preferred by the helmeted woodpecker. The species occurs in 17 protected areas throughout its range, although selective logging and other activities continue to degrade the habitat.
The helmeted woodpecker is listed as endangered in Brazil and as vulnerable by the IUCN. The species is not included in the Appendices to CITES and not known to be in international trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), we assigned the helmeted woodpecker an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information for this CNOR, we find that no change in the LPN for the species is warranted. The species is rare, and although the species may have a wider distribution, loss of primary Atlantic Forest habitat is ongoing. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
The Lord Howe Island pied currawong (
The Lord Howe Island pied currawong is a subspecies of the pied currawong, and occurs throughout the island, although it is most numerous in
The primary threats to the subspecies are the introduction of nonnative rodents to the island ecosystem and the effects of climate change. The Lord Howe Island pied currawong has persisted among invasive black rats (
The Australian Government owns Lord Howe Island. Approximately 75 percent of the island, plus all outlying islets and rocks within the Lord Howe Island group, is protected under the Permanent Park Preserve. The Lord Howe Island Biodiversity Management Plan is the formal recovery plan for threatened species and communities of the Lord Howe Island Group. Following the removal of poison bait traps in 2020, monitoring is underway across the island to see if it has become rodent-free. The New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act of 1995 lists the Lord Howe Island pied currawong as vulnerable, as does Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act List of Threatened Fauna. The subspecies is not listed on the IUCN Red List, is not included in the Appendices to CITES, and is not known to be in international trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), the Lord Howe Island pied currawong was assigned an LPN of 6. After reevaluating the threats to the Lord Howe Island pied currawong for this CNOR, we have determined that no change in the LPN for the subspecies is warranted. The small population faces risks from nontarget poisoning from rodent control, although significant conservation efforts have been implemented. Therefore, based on the best information available, an LPN of 6 remains valid to reflect nonimminent threats of high magnitude.
The Okinawa woodpecker (
The Okinawa woodpecker's main breeding areas lie in the northern part of Okinawa Island, including well-forested areas of Yambaru, a region of approximately 300 km
The primary threats to the Okinawa woodpecker are deforestation in the Yambaru region and introduced predators such as feral dogs and cats, small Indian mongoose (
The Japanese Government established Yambaru National Park in 2016. In July 2021, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) added Amami-Oshima Island; Tokunoshima Island; the northern part of the main Okinawa Island, which contains Yambaru National Park; and Iriomote Island to the list of natural World Heritage sites. The species is listed as critically endangered in the Red List of Threatened Birds in Japan and is protected from acquisition and transfer under Japan's wildlife protection system. The Okinawa woodpecker is not included in the Appendices to CITES and is not known to be in international trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), the Okinawa woodpecker was assigned an LPN of 2.
The orange-fronted parakeet (
Orange-fronted parakeet populations on New Zealand's South Island inhabit subalpine mature beech forests (
The primary threats affecting the species on the mainland are predation by nonnative mammals (rats and stoats (
The New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) initiated a captive-breeding program and established small populations on four predator-free islands, one of which is self-sustaining. Another population has been introduced to a predator-free wildlife sanctuary with suitable beech forest habitat on the South Island. The species was uplisted from nationally endangered to nationally critical by the NZDOC in 2016; it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act and is listed as critically endangered on the IUCN's Red List. The orange-fronted parakeet is included in Appendix II to CITES.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), the orange-fronted parakeet was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the orange-fronted parakeet for this CNOR, we have determined that no change in LPN for the species is warranted. The current population is small, and the species' distribution is limited. Nonnative predators and loss of suitable habitat continue to threaten the species. The NZDOC is actively aiding the recovery of the species. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
The takahē (
The takahē was once widespread in the forest and grassland ecosystems of the South Island. Since the mid-1990s, the species remains present in only a relatively small area of the Murchison Mountains. In their relict range, takahē are largely herbivorous, feeding on tussocks (clumps of long grass that are thicker and longer than the grass growing around them). In the winter, the birds move into forested valleys, where their major food source is the rhizomes of thousand-leaved ferns (
Primary threats to the takahē include hunting, competition from nonnative species, disease outbreaks in the captive population, and nonnative predators such as stoats and weasels. Stoats and weasels appear to be the most significant predator to takahē. The NZDOC is actively managing populations through conservation efforts that include captive-rearing and reintroductions, predator control, management of grassland habitats, and adaptive research. The conservation efforts have slowly increased the number of populations and the species' overall population size.
New Zealand considers the takahē a nationally vulnerable species, and it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act. The takahē is listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List. The species is not known to be in international trade, and the species is not included in the Appendices to CITES.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), the takahē was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the takahē for this CNOR, we have determined that no change in LPN for the species is warranted. The takahē has a small population size and limited range. The NZDOC is actively managing threats to aid in the recovery of the species. Therefore, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats of low to moderate magnitude.
The yellow-browed toucanet (
The yellow-browed toucanet relies on humid montane forests on the eastern slope of the Andes in north-central Peru, at elevations of 2,000-2,600 m (6,562-8,530 ft). The species currently occupies three small locations. Habitat is dominated by tall
Deforestation for livestock, agriculture, timber, and gold mining appears to be the primary threat to the viability of the yellow-browed toucanet. Habitat loss and destruction from deforestation for agriculture have been widespread in the region. Given the inherent threats to small populations (
The species is listed as endangered in the IUCN Red List. The species is not included in the Appendices of CITES and is not known to be in international trade.
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), the yellow-browed toucanet was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information for this CNOR, we find that no change in the LPN is warranted. The estimated population is small within a restricted range. The magnitude of threats to the habitat remains high, and its population is likely declining. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
The Colorado Delta clam (
The species inhabits shallow, muddy waters of the coast and requires adequate substrate and water salinity to successfully breed and develop. The range of the species is relatively large, although densities are significantly lower than they were historically.
We are not aware of any estimates of the total population for the entire range of the species. The historical population of the Colorado Delta clam in the upper Gulf of California was estimated to be at least 5 billion individuals, accounting for 84-95 percent of all bivalve mollusks in the upper Gulf. However, after decades of dam building on the Colorado River and its tributaries, the Colorado Delta clam is estimated to have lost 94% of its population in the upper Gulf since dam construction began. Environmental changes to the estuary associated with reduced river flow include increased salinity, decreased sediment load, decreased input of naturally derived nutrients, and elimination of the spring/summer flood. From the 1990s until 2017, 0 percent of the Colorado River flowed into the Gulf. Since 2017, 2 percent of the river flow has reached the Gulf of California. Low flows are expected to continue or worsen if anticipated drought reduces river flow.
A binational agreement with Mexico requires the United States to invest in water conservation, habitat restoration, and scientific monitoring projects in the delta and release approximately 2 percent of natural flow through 2026. The clam will likely benefit from ongoing efforts to conserve other species and their habitats within the greater Gulf of California,
In the May 3, 2022, CNOR (87 FR 26152), and again in the June 27, 2023, CNOR (88 FR 41560), the Colorado Delta clam was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to this species for this CNOR, we have determined that no change in its LPN of 8 is warranted. The threat of habitat loss and degradation in the Colorado Delta region is ongoing. However, this threat appears to be affecting the clam in the upper Gulf of California and not throughout remainder of its range. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
We previously made warranted-but-precluded findings on petitions seeking to reclassify threatened species to endangered status for delta smelt (
This document and associated species assessment forms constitute the findings for the resubmitted petitions to reclassify the delta smelt and northern spotted owl. Summaries of our updated assessments for these species are provided below. We find that reclassification to endangered status for the delta smelt and northern spotted owl are currently warranted but precluded by work identified above (see Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species, above). One of the primary reasons that the work identified above is considered to have higher priority is that these species are currently listed as threatened and, therefore, already receive certain protections under the Act. For the delta smelt and northern spotted owl, those protections are set forth in our regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 and, by reference, 50 CFR 17.21. It is therefore unlawful for any person, among other prohibited acts, to take (
Other protections that currently apply to these threatened species include those under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, whereby Federal agencies must insure
The northern spotted owl is the largest of three subspecies of spotted owls. The historical range of the northern spotted owl included most mature forests or stands throughout the Pacific Northwest, from southwestern British Columbia to as far south as Marin County, California. The current range of the northern spotted owl is smaller than the historical range as the northern spotted owl is extirpated or very uncommon in certain areas such as southwestern Washington and British Columbia.
The northern spotted owl is relatively long-lived, has a long reproductive life span, invests significantly in parental care, and exhibits high adult survivorship relative to other North American owls. Nesting and roosting habitat characteristics are usually found in older forests and include moderate to high canopy cover; multiple canopy layers; large trees with deformities such as large cavities, broken tops, or mistletoe infections; large snags and fallen trees; and space beneath the canopy for flight. Foraging habitat varies greatly across the range, as does diet, and may coincide with or differ from nesting and roosting habitat. Landscapes supporting dispersal typically include a high proportion of the area in forested cover with trees larger than 11 inches (28 centimeters) in diameter at breast height and more than 30 to 40 percent canopy cover. Northern spotted owls can be found in younger forest stands that have the structural characteristics of older forests or retained structural elements from the previous forest, especially in redwood forests and mixed conifer-hardwood forests along the coast of northwestern California. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the northern spotted owl, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. The incursion of the nonnative barred owl (
On Federal lands, the Northwest Forest Plan has reduced habitat loss and allowed for the development of new northern spotted owl habitat, and the 2016 revised Resource Management Plans for the Bureau of Land Management lands in western Oregon are expected to do the same; however, forest ecosystem processes continue to change, and the expansion of barred owl populations is altering the capacity of intact habitat to support northern spotted owls. Therefore, we find that reclassification of the northern spotted owl as an endangered species under the Act is warranted.
Because the northern spotted owl's current classification as threatened and the blanket section 4(d) rule that has prescribed protections for the species since it was listed (see 50 CFR 17.31(a)) already provide the species the full protections afforded by the Act, uplisting the species to endangered status would not substantively increase protections for the northern spotted owl but would more accurately classify the species given its current status. The listing priority number for the northern spotted owl is 3, reflecting the high magnitude of the threats, which are causing steep population declines. It also reflects the immediacy of the threats. Competition with barred owls is depressing demographic rates in nearly all populations throughout the northern spotted owl's range. Finally, the listing priority number reflects the status of the northern spotted owl as a subspecies.
A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in our northern spotted owl species assessment form (see
Delta smelt are slender-bodied fish, translucent with a steely blue sheen to their sides and are generally about 60 to 70 millimeters (2.36 to 2.75 inches) long. They consist of a single population that primarily occupies open-water habitats in Suisun Bay and marsh and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The delta smelt is primarily an annual species, meaning that it completes its life cycle in one year. It occupies pelagic, cool, turbid, low-salinity and freshwater habitats. It feeds on small, planktonic crustaceans, especially calanoid copepods, at all stages of its life. Adults spawn on sandy or hard substrate. As a small fish, delta smelt shift vertically and longitudinally within the water column with the tidal currents to stay where food is available and to distribute throughout the delta to spawn. The species needs clean, contaminant-free water; abundant zooplankton prey; water channels free from invasive vegetation; and hydrologic conditions that place their low-salinity habitat in locations that both maximize the volume of habitat and minimize the fish's risk of entrainment into both poor habitat conditions and water export facilities.
The primary known threats cited in the April 7, 2010, 12-month finding for reclassifying the delta smelt from threatened to endangered (75 FR 17667) are entrainment by water export facilities, increases in salinity due to reductions in freshwater flow and summer and fall increases in water clarity, effects from introduced species, contaminant exposure, and small population size. The 2021 California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Service adult abundance estimates are the lowest ever recorded. Although conservation measures are in place to protect the species, including the 2019 biological opinion, experimental release, and supplementation, these measures have not been sufficient to halt the decline of the species. Therefore, based on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, we find that the delta smelt still meets the definition of an endangered species under the Act, and that it warrants reclassification from threatened to endangered. However, at this time, the promulgation of a formal rulemaking to reclassify delta smelt is precluded by higher priority actions. Because the delta smelt's current classification as threatened and the blanket section 4(d) rule that has prescribed protections for the species since it was listed (see 50 CFR 17.31(a)) already provide the species the full protections afforded by the Act, uplisting the species to endangered status would not substantively increase protections for the delta smelt but would more accurately classify the species given its current status. In addition, although the identified threats are imminent and substantial, emergency uplisting would provide no additional benefit to the species.
In our 12-month finding published in the
We gather data on plants and animals, both native and foreign to the United States, that appear to merit consideration for addition to the Lists of
Tables 5 and 6, below, list animals arranged alphabetically by common names under the major group headings, and list plants alphabetically by names of genera, species, and relevant subspecies and varieties. Animals are grouped by class or order. Useful synonyms and subgeneric scientific names appear in parentheses with the synonyms preceded by an “equals” sign. We sort plants by scientific name due to the inconsistencies in common names, the inclusion of vernacular and composite subspecific names, and the fact that many plants still lack a standardized common name.
Table 5 lists all candidate species, plus species currently proposed for listing under the Act (as of September 30, 2024). We emphasize that in this document that we are not proposing to list any of the candidate species; rather, we will develop and publish proposed listing rules for these species in the future. We encourage Tribes, State agencies, other Federal agencies, foreign countries, and other parties to consider these species in environmental planning.
In table 5, the “category” column on the left side of the table identifies the status of each species according to the following codes:
PE—Species proposed for listing as endangered. This category, as well as PT and PSAT (below), does not include species for which we have withdrawn or finalized the proposed rule.
PT—Species proposed for listing as threatened.
PSAT—Species proposed for listing as threatened due to similarity of appearance.
C—Candidates: Species for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. Issuance of proposed rules for these species is precluded at present by other higher priority actions. This category includes species for which we made a 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition to list. Our analysis for this document included making new findings on all petitions for which we previously made “warranted-but-precluded” findings. We identify the species for which we made a continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted petition by the code “C” in the category column (see Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species, above, for additional information).
The “Priority” column indicates the LPN for each candidate species, which we use to determine the most appropriate use of our available resources. Lower numbers have higher priority. We assign LPNs based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as on taxonomic status. We published a complete description of our listing priority system in the
Following the scientific name (third column) and the family designation (fourth column) is the common name (fifth column). The sixth column provides the known historical range for the species or vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the historical range for the distinct population segment), indicated by postal code abbreviations for States and U.S. territories or by country for foreign species. Many species no longer occur in all of the areas listed.
Species in table 6 of this document are those species that we included either as proposed species or as candidates in the previous CNOR (88 FR 41560; June 27, 2023) that are no longer proposed species or candidates for listing (as of September 30, 2024). In FY 2023 and FY 2024 (or after; please see note to table 6, below), we listed 52 species. The first column indicates the present status of each species, using the following codes:
E—Species we listed as endangered.
T—Species we listed as threatened.
SAT—Species we listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance.
Rc—Species we removed from the candidate list or is no longer proposed for listing, because currently available information does not support a proposed listing.
Rp—Species we removed from the candidate list or is no longer proposed for listing, because we have withdrawn the proposed listing.
The second column indicates why the species is no longer a candidate species or proposed for listing, using the following codes (not all of these codes may have been used in this CNOR):
A—Species that are more abundant or widespread than previously believed and species that are not subject to the degree of threats sufficient that the species is a candidate for listing (for reasons other than that conservation efforts have removed or reduced the threats to the species).
I—Species for which the best available information on biological vulnerability and threats is insufficient to support a conclusion that the species is an endangered species or a threatened species.
L—Species we added to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
M—Species we mistakenly included as candidates or proposed species in the last notice of review.
N—Species that are not listable entities based on the Act's definition of “species” and current taxonomic understanding.
U—Species that are not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing and therefore are not candidates for listing, due, in part or totally, to conservation efforts that remove or reduce the threats to the species.
X—Species we believe to be extinct.
The columns describing scientific name, family, common name, and historical range include information as previously described for table 5.
We request additional status information that may be available for any of the candidate species identified in this CNOR. We will consider this information to monitor changes in the status or LPN of candidate species and to manage candidates as we prepare listing documents and future revisions to the CNOR. We also request information on additional species to consider including as candidates as we prepare future updates of this CNOR.
We request you submit any further information on the species named in this document as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available. We are particularly interested in any information:
(1) Indicating that we should add a species to the list of candidate species;
(2) Indicating that we should remove a species from candidate status;
(3) Recommending areas that we should designate as critical habitat, or indicating that designation of critical habitat would not be prudent;
(4) Documenting threats to any of the included species;
(5) Describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing candidate species;
(6) Pointing out taxonomic or nomenclature changes for any of the species;
(7) Suggesting appropriate common names; and
(8) Noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historical ranges.
We will consider all information provided in response to this CNOR in deciding whether to propose species for listing and when to undertake necessary listing actions (including whether emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act is appropriate).
Submit information, materials, or comments regarding the species to the person identified as having the lead responsibility for the species in table 4, below.
We will provide information we receive to the office having lead responsibility for each candidate species mentioned in the submission, and information and comments we receive will become part of the administrative record for the species, which we maintain at the appropriate office.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your submission, be advised that your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. Although you can ask us in your submission to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2025) (“EAR” or “the Regulations”), I hereby grant the request of the Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”) to renew the temporary denial order issued in this matter on October 29, 2024. I find that renewal of this order, as modified, is necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the Regulations and that renewal for an extended period is appropriate because Mahan Airways has engaged in a pattern of repeated, ongoing and/or continuous apparent violations of the EAR.
On March 17, 2008, Darryl W. Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement (“Assistant Secretary”), signed an order denying Mahan Airways' export privileges for a period of 180 days on the ground that issuance of the order was necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the Regulations. The order also named as denied persons Blue Airways, of Yerevan, Armenia (“Blue Airways of Armenia”), as well as the “Balli Group Respondents,” namely, Balli Group PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings, two of its officers, Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., and Blue Sky Six Ltd., all of the United Kingdom. The order was issued
This temporary denial order (“TDO”) was renewed in accordance with Section 766.24(d) of the Regulations.
The September 11, 2009 renewal order continued the denial order as to Mahan Airways, but not as to the Balli Group Respondents or Blue Airways of Armenia.
As part of the August 24, 2011 renewal, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, and Ali Eslamian were added as related persons. Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Equipco (UK) Ltd., and Skyco (UK) Ltd. were added as related persons by a modification order issued on April 9, 2012. Mehdi Bahrami was added as a related person as part of the February 4, 2013 renewal order.
On May 21, 2015, a modification order was issued adding Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading as respondents. As detailed in that order and discussed further
Sky Blue Bird Group and its chief executive officer, Issam Shammout, were added as related persons as part of the July 13, 2015 renewal order.
The December 11, 2018 renewal order continued the denial of the export privileges of Mahan Airways, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Mehdi Bahrami, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, Bahar Safwa General Trading, Sky Blue Bird Group, and Issam Shammout.
On September 22, 2025, BIS, through OEE, submitted a written request for renewal of the TDO that issued on October 29, 2024. The written request was made more than 20 days before the TDO's scheduled expiration. Notice of the renewal request was provided to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading in accordance with Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations. No opposition to the renewal of the TDO has been received. Furthermore, no appeal of the related person determinations made as part of the September 3, 2010, February 25, 2011, August 24, 2011, April 9, 2012, February 4, 2013, and July 13, 2015 renewal or modification orders has been made by Kosarian Fard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue Bird Group, or Issam Shammout.
Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may issue or renew an order temporarily denying a respondent's export privileges upon a showing that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an “imminent violation” of the Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and 766.24(d). “A violation may be `imminent' either in time or degree of likelihood.” 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS may show “either that a violation is about to occur, or that the general circumstances of the matter under investigation or case under criminal or administrative charges demonstrate a likelihood of future violations.”
If BIS believes that renewal of a denial order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation, it may file a written request for renewal, with any modifications if appropriate. 15 CFR 766.24(d)(1). The written request, which must be filed no later than 20 days prior to the TDO's expiration, should set forth the basis for BIS's belief that renewal is necessary, including any
OEE's request for renewal is based upon the facts underlying the issuance of the initial TDO, and the renewal and modification orders subsequently issued in this matter, including the May 21, 2015 modification order and the renewal order issued on October 29, 2024, and the evidence developed over the course of this investigation, which indicate a blatant disregard of U.S. export controls and the TDO. The initial TDO was issued as a result of evidence that showed that Mahan Airways and other parties engaged in conduct prohibited by the EAR by knowingly re-exporting to Iran three U.S.-origin aircraft, specifically Boeing 747s (“Aircraft 1-3”), items subject to the EAR and classified under Export Control Classification Number (“ECCN”) 9A991.b, without the required U.S. Government authorization. Further evidence submitted by BIS indicated that Mahan Airways was involved in the attempted re-export of three additional U.S.-origin Boeing 747s (“Aircraft 4-6”) to Iran.
As discussed in the September 17, 2008 renewal order, evidence presented by BIS indicated that Aircraft 1-3 continued to be flown on Mahan Airways' routes after issuance of the TDO, in violation of the Regulations and the TDO itself.
The March 9, 2010 renewal order also noted that a court in the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) had found Mahan Airways in contempt of court on February 1, 2010, for failing to comply with that court's December 21, 2009 and January 12, 2010 orders compelling Mahan Airways to remove the Boeing 747s from Iran and ground them in the Netherlands. Mahan Airways and the Balli Group Respondents had been litigating before the U.K. court concerning ownership and control of Aircraft 1-3. In a letter to the U.K. court dated January 12, 2010, Mahan Airways' Chairman indicated,
The September 3, 2010 renewal order discussed the fact that Mahan Airways' violations of the TDO extended beyond operating U.S.-origin aircraft and attempting to acquire additional U.S.-origin aircraft. In February 2009, while subject to the TDO, Mahan Airways participated in the export of computer motherboards, items subject to the Regulations and designated as EAR99, from the United States to Iran, via the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), in violation of both the TDO and the Regulations, by transporting and/or forwarding the computer motherboards from the UAE to Iran. Mahan Airways' violations were facilitated by Gatewick LLC, which not only participated in the transaction, but also has stated to BIS that it acted as Mahan Airways' sole booking agent for cargo and freight forwarding services in the UAE.
Moreover, in a January 24, 2011 filing in the U.K. court, Mahan Airways asserted that Aircraft 1-3 were not being used, but stated in pertinent part that the aircraft were being maintained in Iran “in an airworthy condition” and that, depending on the outcome of its U.K. court appeal, the aircraft “could immediately go back into service . . . on international routes into and out of Iran.” Mahan Airways' January 24, 2011 submission to U.K. Court of Appeal, at p. 25, ¶¶ 108, 110. This clearly stated intent, both on its own and in conjunction with Mahan Airways' prior misconduct and statements, demonstrated the need to renew the TDO in order to prevent imminent future violations. Two of these three 747s subsequently were removed from Iran and are no longer in Mahan Airways' possession. The third of these 747s remained in Iran under Mahan's control. Pursuant to Executive Order 13224, this 747 was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (“SDGT”) by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) on September 19, 2012.
In addition, as first detailed in the July 1, 2011 and August 24, 2011 orders, and discussed in subsequent renewal orders in this matter, Mahan Airways also continued to evade U.S. export control laws by operating two Airbus A310 aircraft, bearing Mahan Airways' livery and logo, on flights into and out of Iran.
The February 4, 2013 renewal order laid out further evidence of continued and additional efforts by Mahan Airways and other persons acting in concert with Mahan, including Kral Aviation and another Turkish company, to procure U.S.-origin engines—two GE CF6-50C2 engines, with MSNs 517621 and 517738, respectively—and other aircraft parts in violation of the TDO and the Regulations.
On December 31, 2013, Kral Aviation was added to BIS's Entity List, Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations.
The July 31, 2013 renewal order detailed additional evidence obtained by OEE showing efforts by Mahan Airways to obtain another GE CF6-50C2 aircraft engine (MSN 528350) from the United States via Turkey. Multiple Mahan employees, including Mehdi Bahrami, were involved in or aware of matters related to the engine's arrival in Turkey from the United States, plans to visually inspect the engine, and prepare it for shipment from Turkey.
Mahan Airways sought to obtain this U.S.-origin engine through Pioneer Logistics Havacilik Turizm Yonetim Danismanlik (“Pioneer Logistics”), an aircraft parts supplier located in Turkey, and its director/operator, Gulnihal Yegane, a Turkish national who previously had conducted Mahan related business with Mehdi Bahrami and Ali Eslamian. Moreover, as referenced in the July 31, 2013 renewal order, a sworn affidavit by Kosol Surinanda, also known as Kosol Surinandha, Managing Director of Mahan's General Sales Agent in Thailand, stated that the shares of Pioneer Logistics for which he was the listed owner were “actually the property of and owned by Mahan.” He further stated that he held “legal title to the shares until otherwise required by Mahan” but would “exercise the rights granted to [him] exactly and only as instructed by Mahan and [his] vote and/or decisions [would] only and exclusively reflect the wills and demands of Mahan[.]”
The January 24, 2014 renewal order outlined OEE's continued investigation of Mahan Airways' activities and detailed an attempt by Mahan, which OEE thwarted, to obtain, via an Indonesian aircraft parts supplier, two U.S.-origin Honeywell ALF-502R-5 aircraft engines (MSNs LF5660 and LF5325), items subject to the Regulations, from a U.S. company located in Texas. An invoice of the Indonesian aircraft parts supplier dated March 27, 2013, listed Mahan Airways as the purchaser of the engines and included a Mahan ship-to address. OEE also obtained a Mahan air waybill dated March 12, 2013, listing numerous U.S.-origin aircraft parts subject to the Regulations—including, among other items, a vertical navigation gyroscope, a transmitter, and a power control unit—being transported by Mahan from Turkey to Iran in violation of the TDO.
The July 22, 2014 renewal order discussed open source evidence from the March-June 2014 time period regarding two BAE regional jets, items subject to the Regulations, that were painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways and operating under Iranian tail numbers EP-MOI and EP-MOK, respectively.
The January 16, 2015 renewal order detailed evidence of additional attempts by Mahan Airways to acquire items subject to the Regulations in further violation of the TDO. Specifically, in March 2014, OEE became aware of an inertial reference unit bearing serial number 1231 (“the IRU”) that had been sent to the United States for repair. The IRU is a U.S.-origin item, subject to the Regulations, classified under ECCN 7A103, and controlled for missile technology reasons. Upon closer inspection, it was determined that IRU came from or had been installed on an Airbus A340 aircraft bearing MSN 056. Further investigation revealed that as of approximately February 2014, this aircraft was registered under Iranian tail number EP-MMB and had been painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways.
The January 16, 2015 renewal order also described related efforts by the Departments of Justice and Treasury to further thwart Mahan's illicit procurement efforts. Specifically, on August 14, 2014, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland filed a civil forfeiture complaint for the IRU pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 401(b) that resulted in the court issuing an Order of Forfeiture on December 2, 2014. EP-MMB remains listed as active in Mahan Airways' fleet and has been used on flights into and out of Iran as recently as December 19, 2017.
Additionally, on August 29, 2014, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of Asian Aviation Logistics of Thailand, a Mahan Airways affiliate or front company, pursuant to Executive Order 13224. In doing so, OFAC described Mahan Airways' use of Asian Aviation Logistics to evade sanctions by making payments on behalf
The May 21, 2015 modification order detailed the acquisition of two aircraft, specifically an Airbus A340 bearing MSN 164 and an Airbus A321 bearing MSN 550, that were purchased by Al Naser Airlines in late 2014/early 2015 and were under the possession, control, and/or ownership of Mahan Airways.
The May 21, 2015 modification order also laid out evidence showing the respondents' attempts to obtain other controlled aircraft, including aircraft physically located in the United States in similarly-patterned transactions during the same recent time period. Transactional documents involving two Airbus A320s bearing MSNs 82 and 99, respectively, again showed Ali Abdullah Alhay signing sales agreements for Al Naser Airlines.
The July 13, 2015 renewal order outlined evidence showing that Al Naser Airlines' attempts to acquire aircraft on behalf of Mahan Airways extended beyond MSNs 164 and 550 to include a total of nine aircraft.
The January 7, 2016 renewal order discussed evidence that Mahan Airways had begun actively flying EP-MMD on international routes into and out of Iran. Additionally, the January 7, 2016 order described publicly available aviation database and flight tracking information indicating that Mahan Airways continued efforts to acquire Iranian tail numbers and press into active service under Mahan's livery and logo at least two more of the Airbus A340 aircraft it had obtained from or through Al Naser Airlines: EP-MME (MSN 371) and EP-MMF (MSN 376), respectively.
The July 7, 2016 renewal order described Mahan Airways' acquisition of a BAE Avro RJ-85 aircraft (MSN 2392) in violation of the Regulations and its subsequent registration under Iranian tail number EP-MOR.
The December 30, 2016 renewal order outlined Mahan's continued operation of multiple Airbus aircraft, including EP-MMD (MSN 164), EP-MMF (MSN 376), and EP-MMH (MSN 391), which were acquired from or through Al Naser Airlines, as previously detailed in pertinent part in the July 13, 2015 and January 7, 2016 renewal orders. Publicly available flight tracking information showed that the aircraft were operated on flights into and out of Iran, including from/to Beijing, China, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Istanbul, Turkey.
The June 27, 2017 renewal order included similar evidence regarding Mahan Airways' operation of multiple Airbus aircraft subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to, aircraft procured from or through Al Naser Airlines, on flights into and out of Iran, including from/to Moscow, Russia, Shanghai, China and Kabul, Afghanistan. The June 27, 2017 order also detailed evidence concerning a suspected planned or attempted diversion to Mahan of an Airbus A340 subject to the Regulations that had first been mentioned in OEE's December 13, 2016 renewal request.
The December 20, 2017 renewal order presented evidence that a Mahan employee attempted to initiate negotiations with a U.S. company for the purchase of an aircraft subject to the
The December 20, 2017 renewal order also included evidence indicating that Mahan Airways was continuing to operate a number of aircraft subject to the Regulations, including aircraft originally procured from or through Al Naser Airlines, on flights into and out of Iran, including from/to Lahore, Pakistan, Shanghai, China, Ankara, Turkey, Kabul, Afghanistan, and Baghdad, Iraq.
The June 14, 2018 renewal order outlined evidence that Mahan began actively operating EP-MMT, an Airbus A340 aircraft (MSN 292) acquired in 2017 and previously registered in Kazakhstan under tail number UP-A4003, on international flights into and out of Iran.
The June 14, 2018 renewal order also noted OFAC's May 24, 2018 designation of Otik Aviation, a/k/a Otik Havacilik Sanayi Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi, of Turkey, as an SDGT pursuant to Executive Order 13224, for providing material support to Mahan, as well as OFAC's designation as SDGTs of an additional twelve aircraft in which Mahan has an interest.
The December 11, 2018 renewal order detailed publicly available information showing that Mahan Airways had continued operating a number of aircraft subject to the EAR, including, but not limited to, EP-MMB, EP-MME, EP-MMF, and EP-MMQ, on international flights into and out of Iran from/to Istanbul, Turkey, Guangzhou, China, Bangkok, Thailand, and Dubai, UAE.
The December 11, 2018 order also noted OFAC's September 14, 2018 designation of Mahan-related entities as SDGTs pursuant to Executive Order 13224, namely, My Aviation Company Limited, of Thailand, and Mahan Travel and Tourism SDN BHD, a/k/a Mahan Travel a/k/a Mihan Travel & Tourism SDN BHD, of Malaysia.
The June 5, 2019 renewal order highlighted Mahan's continued violation of the TDO and the Regulations. An end-use check conducted by BIS in Malaysia in March 2019 uncovered evidence that, on approximately ten occasions, Mahan had caused, aided and/or abetted the unlicensed export of U.S.-origin items subject to the Regulations from the United States to Iran via Malaysia. The items included helicopter shafts, transmitters, and other aircraft parts, some of which are listed on the Commerce Control List and controlled on anti-terrorism grounds. The June 5, 2019 order also detailed publicly available flight tracking information showing that Mahan continued to unlawfully operate a number of aircraft subject to the EAR on flights into and out of Iran, including on routes to and from Damascus, Syria.
The June 5, 2019 order also described actions taken by both BIS and OFAC to thwart efforts by entities connected to or acting on behalf of Mahan Airways to violate U.S. export controls and sanctions related to Iran. On May 14, 2019, BIS added Manohar Nair, Basha Asmath Shaikh, and two co-located companies that they operate, Emirates Hermes General Trading and Presto Freight International, LLC, to the Entity List pursuant to Section 744.11 of the Regulations, including for engaging in activities to procure U.S.-origin items on Mahan's behalf.
The December 2, 2019 renewal order noted that OEE's on-going investigation revealed that U.S.-origin passenger flight and database management software subject to the Regulations was provided to a company in Turkey and subsequently used to facilitate and service Mahan's operations into and out of Turkey in further violation of the Regulations.
Additionally, open source information, including flight tracking data and news articles published in October 2019, showed that Mahan Airways was now operating a U.S.-origin Boeing 747 on routes between Iranian airports in Tehran, Kish Island, and Mashhad. This aircraft, bearing Iranian tail number EP-MNB, appears to be one of the three aircraft that Mahan illegally acquired via Blue Airways of Armenia and U.K.-based Balli Group that resulted in the issuance of the original TDO.
Evidence was also described in the December 2, 2019 renewal order showing that on or about November 11, 2019, Mahan caused, aided and/or abetted the unlicensed export of a U.S.-origin atomic absorption spectrometer, an item subject to the Regulations, from the United States to Iran via the UAE. Finally, publicly available flight tracking information showed that Mahan continued to unlawfully operate a number of aircraft subject to the EAR on flights into and out of Iran, including on routes to and from Guangzhou, China, Istanbul, Turkey, and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
The May 29, 2020 renewal order cited Mahan's operation of EP-MMD, EP-MMF, and EP-MMI, aircraft originally acquired from Al Naser Airlines, on international flights into and out of Iran from/to Bangkok, Thailand, Dubai, UAE, and Shanghai, China in violation of the TDO and EAR.
In addition to detailing the operation of multiple aircraft in violation of the Regulations,
The November 24, 2020 renewal order also includes actions taken by other U.S. government agencies such as OFAC's August 19, 2020 designation of UAE-based Parthia Cargo, its CEO Amin Mahdavi, and Delta Parts Supply FZC as SDGTs pursuant to Executive Order 13224 for providing “key parts and logistics services for Mahan Air. . . .” The OFAC press release further states, in part, that Mahdavi “has directly coordinated the shipment of parts on behalf of Mahan Air.”
Moreover, in October 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey sentenced Joyce Eliasbachus to 18 months of confinement based on her role in a conspiracy to export $2 million dollars' worth of aircraft parts from the United States to Iran, including to Mahan Airways.
The May 21, 2021 renewal order outlined Mahan's continued operation of a number of aircraft subject to the EAR, including, but not limited to, EP-MMH, EP-MMI, and EP-MMQ, on international flights into and out of Iran from/to Shanghai, China, and Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Guangzhou, China, respectively.
Open source news reporting also indicated that after five years of maintenance, Mahan Air is now operating EP-MNE, a Boeing 747 on domestic flights within Iran.
The November 17, 2021 order details Mahan's continued operation of a number of aircraft subject to the EAR, including, but not limited to EP-MME, EP-MMJ, EP-MMQ, on flights into and out of Iran from/to Istanbul, Turkey, and Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Shenzhen, China, respectively.
The May 13, 2022 renewal order outlines Mahan's continuing violation of the TDO and/or Regulations including, but not limited to the operation of EP-MME, EP-MNO, and EP-MMB on flights into and out of Iran from/to Moscow, Russia, Damascus, Syria, and Guangzhou, China, respectively.
The May 13, 2022 renewal order also cited OFAC's recent administrative enforcement action with an Australian freight forwarder resulting in a $6,131,855 civil penalty, which resolved, in part, allegations of receiving 327 payments from Mahan that were processed through U.S. financial institutions or foreign branches of U.S. financial institutions in apparent violation of OFAC sanctions.
The November 8, 2022 order detailed Mahan Air's continued violation of the TDO and Regulations, including the Russia-related export controls set out in Section 746.8 of the Regulations. On September 19, 2022, BIS publicly identified Mahan's EP-MEE aircraft for its unlicensed reexport to Russia in apparent violation of Section 746.8 of the Regulations.
Further, on August 2, 2022, BIS took a related enforcement action against Venezuela-based cargo airline Empresa de Transporte Aéreocargo del Sur, S.A., a/k/a Aerocargo del Sur Transportation Company, a/k/a EMTRASUR (“EMTRASUR”), for acquiring custody and/or control from Mahan Air of a U.S.-origin Boeing 747 aircraft bearing manufacturer's serial number 23413 (“MSN 23413”) in violation of the TDO.
The May 5, 2023 renewal order outlined open source evidence showing Mahan continuing to operate EP-MNF, EP-MMQ, and EP-MME on flights into and out of Iran from/to Guangzhou, China, Kabul, Afghanistan, and Moscow, Russia, respectively, without the requisite authorization.
OEE's October 31, 2023 renewal outlined Mahan's continued violation of the TDO by operating aircraft including EP-MME, EP-MMQ, and EP-MMB on flights into and out of Iran from/to Erbil, Iraq, Shanghai, China, Lahore, Pakistan, and Moscow, Russia.
The October 31, 2023 renewal order also detailed the on-going national security and foreign policy threats and concerns raised by Mahan's destabilizing activities. Specifically, open source reporting details October 12, 2023 airstrikes at Syria's Damascus and Aleppo airports made in an effort to divert a Mahan A340 (MSN 282 and bearing tail number EP-MMC)
The October 31, 2024 renewal order outlined Mahan's on-going violations of the TDO by operating aircraft including EP-MME, EP-MMQ, EP-MMR on flights into and out Iran from/to Guangzhou, China, Moscow, Russia, and Erbil, Iraq.
OEE's September 22, 2025 TDO renewal request along with its on-going investigation, illustrates that Mahan continues operating aircraft including EP-MMR, EP-MMT, and EP-MMG on flights into and out of Iran from/to Moscow, Russia, Lahore, Pakistan, and Shanghai, China.
Under the applicable standard set forth in Section 766.24 of the Regulations and my review of the entire record, I find that the evidence presented by BIS convincingly demonstrates that the denied persons have acted in violation of the Regulations and the TDO; that such violations have been significant, deliberate and covert; and that given the foregoing and the nature of the matters under investigation, there is a likelihood of imminent violations. Moreover, I find that renewal for an extended period is appropriate given the pattern of repeated, ongoing and/or continuous apparent violations of the EAR. Therefore, renewal of the TDO is necessary in the public interest to prevent imminent violation of the Regulations and to give notice to companies and individuals in the United States and abroad that they should continue to avoid dealing with Mahan Airways and Al Naser Airlines and the other denied persons, in connection with export and reexport transactions involving items subject to the Regulations and in connection with any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or engaging in any other activity subject to the EAR; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or from any other activity subject to the EAR.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.24(e) of the EAR, Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa General Trading may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.23(c)(2) and 766.24(e)(3) of the EAR, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue Bird Group, and/or Issam Shammout may, at any time, appeal their inclusion as a related person by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. A renewal request may be opposed by Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa General Trading as provided in Section 766.24(d), by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order.
A copy of this Order shall be provided to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading and each related person, and shall be published in the
This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for one year.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (EPA ICR Number 2170.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0580) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2025. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before December 1, 2025.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0489, to EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Marc Houyoux, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, C339-02, Environmental
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2025. 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.
Public comments were previously requested via the
The data collected from the emission reporting is necessary to compile and make publicly available a national inventory of air pollutant emissions. The information collected supports both EPA's implementation of the CAA, and State/Local/Tribal air agencies in fulfilling their requirements under CAA sections 110(a), 172, 182, 187, and 189 to implement primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). A comprehensive inventory updated at regular intervals is essential to allow the EPA to fulfill its mandate to monitor and plan for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS established for criteria pollutants in the CAA.
Additionally, State and local agencies collect data from owners/operators to be able to provide it to the EPA. The EPA seeks information from State and local air agencies to indicate the degree to which emissions data collection is due to the AERR rather than something that these agencies would impose even in the absence of the AERR.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to modify and reissue a DHS system of records notice (SORN) titled, “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)-004 Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE).” As described in this modified SORN, USCIS, an agency within DHS, collects and maintains records on applicants for public benefits, licenses, grants, governmental credentials, and other statutorily authorized purposes through the SAVE program. SAVE allows registered user agencies to verify the immigration status/category (“immigration status”) and U.S. citizenship (including for U.S. citizens by birth, naturalized and certain acquired citizens) of individuals applying for or receiving a public benefit, license or other authorized purpose (“benefit”). “Acquired citizenship” refers to U.S. citizenship conveyed to children through the naturalization of parents or, under certain circumstances, at birth to foreign-born children of U.S. citizens, provided certain conditions are met. DHS/USCIS is updating this SORN to include updates and modifications to the (1) purpose(s) of the system, (2) categories of individuals covered by the system, (3) categories of records in the system, (4) records source categories, and (5) routine uses of records maintained in the system. Additionally, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice.
Submit comments on or before December 1, 2025. This modified system will be effective upon publication. New or modified routine uses will be effective December 1, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number USCIS-2025-0337 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: Angela Y. Washington, 240-721-3705, Privacy Officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS Headquarters, 5900 Capital Gateway Dr., Camp Springs, MD 20746. For privacy questions, please contact: Roman Jankowski, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is proposing to modify and reissue a current DHS SORN titled, “DHS/USCIS-004 Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program System of Records.”
This modified SORN is being published to update the purpose of SAVE to include the addition of expanded search functionality for registered SAVE user agencies to verify the U.S. citizenship of U.S. citizens by birth and to clarify use of SAVE for voter verification.
This SORN modification also clarifies and informs the public that SAVE has removed transaction charges for all state, local, tribal, and territorial government agencies that use the system. Federal agencies are still charged a fee to use SAVE.
DHS/USCIS is adding individuals that are U.S. citizens by birth to the categories of individuals covered by the system.
DHS/USCIS is updating the categories of records in the system to include collecting both full and truncated (last four digits) Social Security number (other than those collected on Form G-845, Verification Request), U.S. passport number, driver's license number, and information from the Social Security Administration.
DHS/USCIS is revising the record source categories to add SSA-60-0058 Master Files of Social Security Number Holders, Social Security Number Applications, February 20, 2025 (90 FR 10025) and state or other national agencies that issue or maintain driver's license information.
DHS/USCIS is amending the routine uses section of the SORN to include adding Routine Use L, to support sharing with Social Security Administration and other federal organizations, and Routine Use M, to support sharing with federal agencies (
Additionally, this notice includes non-substantive changes, including reorganizing of categories of records, change in the use of terms such as from “derived” citizen/citizenship to “acquired” citizen/citizenship, and spelling out of form names from the previously published system of records notice.
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in DHS/USCIS SAVE may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know of the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS/USCIS may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice. Information in SAVE, including records submitted by the user agency, is not to be used for administrative (non-criminal) immigration enforcement purposes.
This modified system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems. USCIS administers SAVE. SAVE is an online intergovernmental service designed to help federal, state, territorial, tribal, local government agencies, benefit-granting agencies, other authorized entities (
A typical SAVE verification involves a registered federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local government benefit or license-granting agency verifying the immigration status or U.S. citizenship of a benefit applicant. SAVE is not a database for immigration status and citizenship information. Rather, SAVE accesses the USCIS Verification Data Integration Service which searches multiple government databases or systems to provide a SAVE response. The initial SAVE response is derived from information contained in government systems accessed by SAVE using information from U.S. government-issued documents, such as a Social Security card, Permanent Resident Card (often referred to as a Green Card) or an Employment Authorization Document. For a SAVE user agency to create a SAVE case, the agency must collect and enter certain identifiers from the benefit applicant's identity document(s). The verification process is driven by identifiers generally
SAVE user agencies input data elements pertaining to the applicant through SAVE. SAVE then connects to the internal USCIS Verification Data Integration Service to process the request using the user agency provided data. These data elements may include last name, first name, middle name, date of birth, Social Security number, passport number, driver's license number, one or more DHS immigration enumerators (
If SAVE is unable to provide an initial automated response verifying the benefit applicant's immigration status or U.S. citizenship, SAVE will provide instructions on actions the user agency may take, including requesting additional verification. Users may also request additional verification when they have questions about a SAVE response or when requested by the benefit applicant. SAVE additional verification procedures generally entail in-depth electronic and manual research in available records (including both electronic records as well as paper Alien Files (A-Files), when necessary) by USCIS status verification staff to verify the benefit applicant's immigration status or U.S. citizenship.
On January 20, 2025, and March 25, 2025, respectively, the President issued Executive Orders 14159,
Pursuant to these Executive Orders, DHS personnel must timely provide verification of U.S. citizenship and immigration status information in response to inquiries from federal, state, and local government agencies to verify or ascertain the U.S. citizenship or immigration status of individuals within the jurisdiction of the State or local government agency for any purpose authorized by law. DHS personnel will comply with these requirements, to the maximum extent possible and permissible under law, considering federal statutory requirements, including the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a and 8 U.S.C. 1367 (special protected class information); as well as other applicable laws, rules, regulations, policies, and requirements regarding verification, information sharing, and confidentiality.
To respond to these requirements, USCIS has incorporated a feature to allow SAVE user agencies to create a SAVE case using a full or partial Social Security number and other government-issued enumerators (
When creating a case in SAVE, the user agency must always enter the individual's first and last name, date of birth, and at least one enumerator, which may now include a full 9-digit or partial Social Security number. The ability to create a SAVE case using a full or partial Social Security number is initially limited to users who log into SAVE via a web browser but will eventually be expanded to user agencies who use a system-to-system connection with SAVE via web services.
Where a user uses a full or partial Social Security number to create a SAVE case, USCIS now provides this information to the Social Security Administration Enumeration System for search and response. The Social Security Administration provides the following responses to USCIS:
• Social Security number match (True/False);
• Name match (True/False);
• Date of birth match (True/False);
• Citizenship indicator;
○ “A”—U.S. Citizen;
○ “B”—Legal alien, eligible to work;
○ “C”—Legal alien, not eligible to work;
○ “D”—Other;
○ “E”—Alien Student—restricted work authorized; and
○ “F”—Conditionally legalized alien.
• Foreign born indicator (Citizenship code is not present, but individual was foreign born);
• State/Country code;
• American Samoa indicator (True/False);
• Alien Registration Number (Alien Number or A-Number) (where applicable);
• Death indicator (Yes/No); and
• Error code descriptions (transaction and record levels).
This search functionality allows SAVE the capability to verify the Social Security number and U.S. citizen indicators of many U.S. citizens by birth, as found in the Enumeration System. This is an expansion from the previous SAVE functionality, which limited U.S. citizenship verification to DHS records of naturalized and certain acquired U.S. citizens.
SAVE has added the ability for user agencies to verify acquired citizenship
Driver's licenses are the most widely used form of identification. By working with state driver's licensing agencies and national agencies that store driver's license information for legal purposes (such as the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS)), SAVE will use driver's license and state identification card numbers to check and confirm identity information. When the agency provides a driver's license or state identification card number as the enumerator to verify the identity of the applicant, SAVE will use state driver's licensing agencies or another source (such as NLETS) to validate the information and gain access to other government enumerators. This will allow SAVE to match against other sources to verify immigration status and U.S. citizenship, which will improve accuracy and efficiency for SAVE user agencies. It must be noted that the Driver's license number search functionality is not live at the time of publication but will be in the foreseeable future.
User agencies now have the capability to create cases in SAVE by uploading a file with a list of multiple cases. This provides greater efficiency, because the user agency no longer has to enter cases into SAVE one at a time. Initially, only users who log into SAVE using a web browser will have access to this feature, but USCIS may extend this feature to other users in the future.
After file upload and acceptance of the data, SAVE, through an automated process, creates front-end single-record cases for each entry; this is not batch processing but SAVE creating each case individually for the user agency. Initially, the creation of cases using this feature is limited to cases created using an Alien Registration Number, Citizenship or Naturalization Certificate number, or Social Security number. Agencies are not prompted to institute additional verification when using this process but are instructed to resubmit with additional information when the process is unable to return a response. Expansion of this feature in the future may include the ability to create cases with additional enumerators and the ability to request configured information not automatically selected for the benefit type.
User agencies can access each case created using the list processor feature in SAVE as normal, by viewing the individual case status and response. SAVE also has a feature available to all user agencies to generate a report that will list all the cases created, the status of an individual case, and the SAVE response. Access to generate the report, including what cases are included, vary depending upon the user's permissions. USCIS provides this verification service for all benefit requests.
SAVE will support organizations that have entered into required agreements with USCIS and have legal oversight authority over a program or benefit type supported by SAVE through reporting capabilities for auditing purposes. User agencies with a legal authority to monitor and audit benefits granted or voter registration records may view relevant case data such as biographic data, enumerators, case submission date/time, and SAVE response information. Reporting options exist for individual user agencies and their case data.
Additionally, user agencies with appropriate legal authority may now view, within SAVE, other user agencies' case data through a linking mechanism based on either benefit type granted (
Other account types enable user agencies to create cases within SAVE to verify applicants' current eligibility for benefits previously granted. This will allow organizations, such as federal and state oversight agencies, to ensure user agencies that they legally monitor, and audit are properly verifying immigration status or citizenship status before making an eligibility determination and to ensure previously approved applicants remain eligible for the benefits they are receiving.
Through this SORN, DHS/USCIS is administratively clarifying the purpose of this system of records by reinserting voter registration that was previously published in 76 FR 58525 (September 21, 2011) and updating to the term “voter verification” to include verification of U.S. citizens by birth through Social Security number matching. Also, DHS/USCIS is expanding the purpose to include the additional search functionality to verify the citizenship of U.S. citizens by birth for all registered benefits and licenses by registered SAVE user agencies.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, and similarly, the Judicial Redress Act provides covered persons with a statutory right to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the Judicial Redress Act, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the Judicial Redress Act prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
Below is the description of the DHS/USCIS-004 SAVE Program System of Records. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)-004 Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program System of Records.
Unclassified
Records are maintained at the USCIS Headquarters in Camp Springs, MD and at DHS/USCIS field offices. Electronic records for Verification Data Integration Service are stored in a secure, cloud hosted environment.
Chief, Verification Division,
Authority for having a system for verification of citizenship and immigration status is found in Immigration and Nationality Act, Public Law 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (June 27, 1952), as amended, Immigration Reform and Control Act, Public Law 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (Nov. 6, 1986); Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (Aug. 22, 1996); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996); (8 U.S.C. 1373(c)); the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005); Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (Mar. 23, 2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (Mar. 30, 2010); and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016, Public Law 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (July 15, 2016), 8 CFR part 213a (Affidavits of Support on Behalf of Immigrants).
The purpose of this system is to provide a service (fee-based for federal agencies) that assists federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local benefit-granting agencies, licensing bureaus, and other authorized entities for any legally mandated purpose in accordance with an authorizing statute to verify the U.S. citizenship and immigration status of individual, to include naturalized, derived, and U.S. citizens by birth, within their jurisdiction applying for benefits, and to otherwise efficiently administer their programs, to the extent that such disclosure is necessary to enable these agencies and entities to make decisions related to (1) determining eligibility for a federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local public benefit; (2) issuing a license or grant; (3) issuing a government credential; (4) conducting a background investigation; (5) voter verification or (6) any other lawful purpose. This system is also used for USCIS bond management purposes under section 213 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Categories of individuals covered by this system include: (1) individuals who have filed, for themselves or on the behalf of others, applications or other requests for federal, state, territorial, tribal or local licenses or benefits; (2) individuals who are U.S. citizens, including those who are U.S. citizens by birth, and naturalized or acquired U.S. citizens; (3) individuals who have applied for or received other immigration benefits pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1103
Information collected from the benefit applicant by the user agency to facilitate U.S citizenship and immigration status verification may include the following:
• Individual's full name (maiden name if applicable);
• Date of birth;
• Country of birth;
• Citizenship or nationality;
• Alien Registration Number (A-Number)/USCIS number;
• Other immigration number/enumerator (
• Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record number;
• Visa number;
• Receipt number/card number;
• Student and Exchange Visitor Information System Identification number;
• Foreign Passport number and country of issuance;
• Social Security number (full and truncated) or other alternate number issued by the SSA (
• U.S Passport number;
• Driver's license number;
• Agency Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number;
• Benefit type sought (
• Copies of original immigration documents.
Information collected from the user agency who accesses the system to facilitate U.S citizenship and immigration status verification may include the following:
• Agency name;
• Address;
• Names of agency points(s) of contact;
• Title of agency point(s) of contact;
• Contact telephone number;
• Fax number;
• Email address;
• User identification; and
• Type of license/benefit(s) the agency issues (
Information collected from the Social Security Administration used by SAVE to verify U.S. citizenship or immigration status of an applicant on behalf of a SAVE user agency:
• Social Security number match (True/False);
• Name match (True/False);
• Date of birth match (True/False);
• Death indicator (Yes Deceased/Not Deceased);
• Citizenship indicator;
○ “A”—U.S. citizen;
○ “B”—Legal alien, eligible to work;
○ “C”—Legal alien, not eligible to work;
○ “D”—Other;
○ “E”—Alien student-restricted work authorized; and
○ “F”—Conditionally legalized alien.
• Foreign Born Indicator (Citizenship code is not present, but individual was foreign born);
• Alien Registration Number (Alien Number or A-Number) (where applicable); and
• Error code descriptions (transaction and record levels).
System-generated responses because of the SAVE verification process may include:
• Verification case number; and
• SAVE response.
Information collected from the benefit-granting agency about actions that an agency adjudicating Federal means-tested public benefits takes to deem sponsor income as part of applicant income for purposes of Federal means-tested benefits eligibility and to seek reimbursement from sponsors for the value of benefits provided to sponsored applicants may include:
• Whether the benefit-granting agency approved or denied the application for the means-tested public benefit;
• If the benefit-granting agency denied the application, whether the denial was based upon the information that SAVE provided in its response to the citizenship and immigration status verification request from the benefit-granting agency;
• Whether the benefit-granting agency deemed sponsor/household member income and, if not, the exception or reason for not doing so;
• Whether the benefit-granting agency sent the sponsor a reimbursement request letter (yes/no);
• Whether the sponsor complied with his or her reimbursement obligation; and
• Whether the benefit-granting agency conducted a collection action or other proceedings if the sponsor did not comply with his or her reimbursement obligation (yes/no and if yes, the status, court or forum, and docket or matter number).
Individual information that may be used by SAVE to verify U.S citizenship and immigration status and provide a SAVE response includes:
• Full name;
• Date of birth;
• Country of birth;
• Alien Registration Number (Alien Number or A-Number);
• Social Security number;
• Photograph;
• U.S. passport;
• Driver's license number or State identification number;
• Receipt number/card number (
• Other unique identifying numbers (
• Visa number;
• Government-issued identification (
○ Document type;
○ Country of issuance (COI);
○ Document number; and
○ Expiration date.
• Entry/Departure date;
• Port of entry;
• Alien status change date;
• Naturalization date;
• Date admitted until;
• Country of citizenship;
• Document grant date;
• Document receipt number;
• Codes (
• Employment Authorization Document (EAD) history;
• Beneficiary information (
• Petitioner information (
• Sponsor(s) and household member(s) information (
SAVE may also access immigration case history for other individuals, including:
• Spouse information (
• Children information (
• Employer information (
• Individuals associated with background checks information (
Case history information may include:
• Alert(s);
• Case summary comments;
• Case category;
• Date of encounter;
• Encounter information;
• Custody actions and decisions;
• Case actions and decisions;
• Bonds;
• Photograph;
• Asylum applicant receipt date;
• Airline and flight number;
• Country of residence;
• City (
• Date visa issued;
• Address in United States;
• Nationality;
• Decision memoranda; investigatory reports and materials compiled for the purpose of enforcing immigration laws;
• Exhibits;
• Transcripts; and
• Other case-related papers concerning aliens, alleged aliens, or lawful permanent residents brought into the administrative adjudication process.
Records are obtained from several sources including: (A) agencies and entities seeking to determine U.S citizenship or immigration status of benefit applicants; (B) individuals seeking public licenses, benefits, or credentials; (C) other DHS components assisting with enrollment and system maintenance processes; (D) information created by SAVE; (E) state or national organizations issuing and maintaining driver's license or state identification information such as the NLETS; and (F) information collected and covered by the following USCIS, DHS, and other federal agency systems of records:
• DHS/USCIS/ICE/CBP-001 Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking System of Records, September 18, 2017 (FR 82 FR 43556);
• DHS/USCIS-007 Benefits Information System, October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54622);
• DHS/USCIS-010 Asylum Information and Pre-Screening System of Records, November 30, 2015 (80 FR 74781);
• DHS/USCIS-018 Immigration Biometric and Background Check (IBBC) Records System of Records, July 31, 2018 (83 FR 36950);
• DHS/CBP-005 Advance Passenger Information System (APIS), March 13, 2015 (80 FR 13407);
• DHS/CBP-006 Automated Targeting System, May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30297);
• DHS/CBP-007 CBP Border Crossing Information (BCI), December 13, 2016 (81 FR 89957);
• DHS/CBP-011 U.S. Customs and Border Protection TECS, December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77778);
• DHS/CBP-016 Nonimmigrant Information System, March 13, 2015 (80 FR 13398);
• DHS/CBP-021 Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS), November 18, 2015 (80 FR 72081);
• DHS/ICE-001 DHS/ICE-001 Student and Visitor Exchange Program (SEVP), December 8, 2021 (86 FR 69663);
• DHS/ICE-011 Criminal Arrest Records and Immigration Enforcement Records (CARIER) System of Records, July 5, 2024 (89 FR 55638);
• DHS/ALL-003 Department of Homeland Security General Training Records, November 25, 2008 (73 FR71656);
• DHS/ALL-016 Correspondence Records, September 26, 2018 (83 FR 48645);
• JUSTICE/EOIR-002, Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) Case Management System (CMS) August 16, 2019 (84 FR 42016);
• STATE-05 Overseas Citizens Services Records and Other Overseas Records, November 20, 2023 (88 FR 80804);
• STATE-26 Passport Records, March 24, 2015 (80 FR 15653);
• STATE-39 Visa Records, November 8, 2021 (86 FR 61822) and
• SSA-60-0058 Master Files of Social Security Number Holders and Social Security Number Applications, February 20, 2025 (90 FR 10025)
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the U.S. Attorneys Offices, or other federal agency conducting litigation or proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity, only when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) DHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, DHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when DHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
G. To an appropriate federal, state, territorial, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
I. To approved federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local government agencies for any legally mandated purpose (
J. To a federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local government agency that oversees or administers Federal means-tested public benefits for purposes of seeking reimbursement from sponsors for the value of benefits provided to sponsored applicants, as well as reporting on overall sponsor deeming and agency reimbursement efforts to appropriate administrative and oversight agencies.
K. To airport operators to determine the eligibility of individuals seeking unescorted access to any Security Identification Display Area of an airport, as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016.
L. To the Social Security Administration and other federal, state, tribal, territorial, local, governments and other authorized entities to assist user agencies determine U.S. citizenship and immigration status of an individual when a DHS approved agreement is in place between DHS and the entity.
M. To federal, state, territorial, tribal, local, and other entities that have legal authority to provide oversight to programs and benefits supported by SAVE for auditing of program requirements and when a DHS-approved agreement (
N. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
DHS/USCIS stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic discs, tapes, and digital media. Additionally, information is located within the USCIS Verification Data Integration Service SAVE Program.
DHS/USCIS retrieves records by name of applicant or other unique identifier including, but not limited to Verification Case Number, Alien Registration Number (Alien Number or A-Number), I-94 Number, Social Security number, Passport number, Driver's license number, Visa number, Student and Exchange Visitor Information System Identification number, or by the submitting agency name.
SAVE records are covered by NARA-approved records retention and disposal schedule, N1-566-08-07. Records collected in the process of enrolling in SAVE and in verifying U.S. citizenship or immigration status are stored and retained in SAVE for ten (10) years from the date of the completion of
DHS/USCIS safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. USCIS has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
Absent an authorized exception for disclosure exists, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security protects and withholds the Privacy Act of 1974/Judicial Redress Act of 2015 covered records by law for U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and Judicial Redress Act covered persons from covered countries.
Individuals seeking access to and notification of any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request online at
When an individual is seeking records about himself or herself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, the individual's request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. The individual must first verify his/her identity, meaning that the individual must provide his/her full name, current address, and date and place of birth. The individual must sign the request, and the individual's signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, an individual may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
• Explain why the individual believes the Department would have information on him/her;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department the individual believes may have the information about him/her;
• Specify when the individual believes the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records.
If an individual's request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, the first individual must include a statement from the second individual certifying his/her agreement for the first individual to access his/her records.
Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and the individual's request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
For records covered by the Privacy Act or covered the Judicial Redress Act records, see “Record Access Procedures” above. For records not covered by the Privacy Act or Judicial Redress Act, individuals may still amend their records at a USCIS Field Office by contacting the USCIS Contact Center at 1-800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833) to request an appointment.
See “Record Access Procedures.”
None. However, when this system receives a record from another system exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a, DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated.
85 FR 31798 (May 27, 2020); 81 FR 78619 (November 8, 2016); 76 FR 58525 (September 21, 2011); 73 FR 75445 (December 11, 2008); 73 FR 10793 (February 28, 2008); 72 FR 17569 (April 9, 2007); 67 FR 64134 (October 17, 2002); and 66 FR 46812 (September 7, 2001).
National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the National Indian Gaming Commission has adopted its annual fee rates of 0.00% for tier 1 and 0.08% (.0008) for tier 2, which maintain the current fee rates. These rates shall apply to all assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the Commission. If a tribe has a certificate of self-regulation, the fee rate on Class II revenues shall be 0.04% (.0004) which is one-half of the annual fee rate. The annual fee rates are effective November 1, 2025, and will remain in effect until new rates are adopted. The National Indian Gaming Commission has also adopted its fingerprint processing fee of $44 per card which remains the same as current fingerprint processing fee. The fingerprint processing fee is effective November 1, 2025, and will remain in effect until the Commission adopts a new rate.
Yvonne Lee, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240; telephone (202) 632-7003; fax (202) 632-7066.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) established the National Indian Gaming Commission, which is charged with regulating gaming on Indian lands.
Commission regulations (25 CFR 514) provide for a system of fee assessment and payment that is self-administered by gaming operations. Pursuant to those regulations, the Commission is required to adopt and communicate assessment
Pursuant to 25 CFR 514, the Commission must also review annually the costs involved in processing fingerprint cards and set a fee based on fees charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and costs incurred by the Commission. Commission costs include Commission personnel, supplies, equipment & infrastructure costs, and postage to submit the results to the requesting tribe. In FY26 the Commission will continue its commitment to take necessary measures to comply with the FBI CJIS requirements which ensure the NIGC and participating tribes can continue to use FBI criminal history report information (CHRI) to assist in determining a key employee or primary management official's eligibility for a gaming license.
To ensure compliance with the President issued Executive Order 14247, “Modernizing Payments To and From America's Bank Account” which “mandat[ed] the transition to electronic payments for all Federal disbursements and receipts by digitizing payments”, the NIGC is in the process of phasing out paper check receipts and transitioning to receiving all payments via
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is submitting the following extensions and revisions of currently approved collections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal.
Written comments should be received on or before December 1, 2025 to be assured consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submission may be obtained by contacting Dacia Rogers at (703) 518-6547, emailing
By the National Credit Union Administration Board.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice with request for comments.
Healthcare and Insurance, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) surveys. The CAHPS® surveys ask consumers and patients to report on and evaluate their experiences with health care. These surveys cover topics that are important to consumers and focus on aspects of quality that consumers are best qualified to assess, such as the communication skills of providers and ease of access to health care services.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 1, 2025. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR part 1320.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
A copy of this information collection request (ICR), with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Meredith Gitangu, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, or via electronic mail to
The Office of Personnel Management, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), provides the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Agency assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Agency's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. This information collection was previously published in the
OPM is soliciting comments on behalf of OMB for the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
OPM uses the CAHPS results as part of the FEHB Plan Performance Assessment (PPA). The PPA enables a consistent, objective evaluation of carrier performance and also provides more transparency for enrollees. This assessment uses a discrete set of quantifiable measures to examine key aspects of performance in the areas of clinical quality, customer service and resource use. Six CAHPS measures are part of this discrete set of quantifiable measures.
Taken together with more traditional assessments of contract administration, these measures help ensure that enrollees receive high quality affordable healthcare and a positive customer experience. The PPA is linked to carrier profit and adjustment factors. FEHB contracts include language to incorporate the PPA as a determinant of the Service Charge or Performance Adjustment.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will conduct its regular business meeting on December 4, 2025 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Details concerning the matters to be addressed
The meeting will be held on Thursday, December 4, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.
This public meeting will be conducted in person and digitally from the Susquehanna River Basin Commission at 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission, telephone: 717-238-0423; fax: 717-238-2436.
The business meeting will include actions or presentations on the following items: (1) adoption Resolution 2025-07 approving the 2026 Fee Schedule; (2) approval of contract and grants; (3) adopt Resolution 2025-08 for the emergency certificate extension for Mott's LLP—Aspers Plant; and (4) 21 actions on 14 regulatory program projects.
This agenda is complete at the time of issuance, but other items may be added, and some stricken without further notice. The listing of an item on the agenda does not necessarily mean that the Commission will take final action on it at this meeting. When the Commission does take final action, notice of these actions will be published in the
The meeting will be conducted both in person and digitally at the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The public is invited to attend the Commission's business meeting. The public may access the Business Meeting remotely via Zoom:
A public hearing and written comment period was provided for the actions on the 14 projects and the comment period on those proposed actions is closed. Written comments pertaining to all other items on the agenda at the business meeting may be mailed to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-1788, or submitted electronically at the link Business Meeting Comments. Comments are due to the Commission for all items (other than the proposed project actions subject to the public hearing) on the business meeting agenda on or before December 1, 2025. Comments will not be accepted at the business meeting noticed herein.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on a request for an extension to a special permit segment to be incorporated into special permit PHMSA-2020-0007 submitted by Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC (SNG), a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc. SNG is seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. PHMSA has proposed conditions to ensure that the special permit is not inconsistent with pipeline safety. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant or deny the special permit request.
Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by December 1, 2025.
Comments should reference the docket number for this special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
There is a privacy statement published on
PHMSA received a special permit request from SNG, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., on September 26, 2024, seeking an extension to a special permit segment to be incorporated into special permit PHMSA-2020-0007. The extended segment request is a part of the active permit's Special Permit Inspection Area 4. Special permit PHMSA-2020-0007 allows SNG to deviate from the Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR 192.611(a) and 192.619(a), where a gas transmission pipeline segment has undergone a change from a Class 1 to a Class 3 location.
Special permit PHMSA-2020-0007 is active and was granted on July 27, 2022 and is effective until July 27, 2032. The special permit originally applied to four special permit segments, which included 3,278 feet (approximately 0.62 miles) of the SNG natural gas transmission pipeline system located in Effingham and Harris counties, Georgia, and Clarke County, Mississippi. In 2023, Special Permit Segment 2 underwent pipe replacement and Special Permit Segment 4 was hydrotested; both segments are now compliant with 49 CFR 192.611 and are no longer waived by special permit PHMSA-2020-0007. The present request would extend Special Permit Segment 5 for 997 feet (approximately 0.19 miles). If granted, the special permit segments would total 3,720 feet (approximately 0.70 miles).
The special permit segments, including the requested extension, are detailed in updated Attachment A—Segment Integrity Information. Proposed modifications due to this request are as follows:
Upon receipt of this request, PHMSA reviewed the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) and finds that the expansion of the proposed special permit would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Furthermore, the existing FEA and finding of no significant impact remain adequate, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
SNG's request for an extension to Special Permit Segment 5, active Special Permit with Conditions, and associated environmental document are available for review and public comment in Docket No. PHMSA-2020-0007. PHMSA invites interested persons to review and submit comments in the docket on this request for modification of the special permit. Please submit comments on any potential safety, environmental, and other relevant considerations implicated by the special permit request. Comments may include relevant data.
Before issuing a decision on the special permit request, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comment closing date. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment it receives in making its decision to grant or deny this special permit request.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before December 1, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on this request.
Comments should be received on or before December 1, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing
Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), the Office is authorized to issue rules and regulations in order to collect and standardize data on behalf of the Council to promote Council goals, such as helping to identify and monitor risks to financial stability. The ability of the Office to collect centrally cleared repo data in this rule derives from the authority to promulgate regulations for the collection of financial transaction and position data of financial companies through the Data Center in 12 U.S.C. 5344(b)(1). The promulgation of regulations for the type and scope of data collected by the Data Center is done pursuant to the general Office rulemaking authority contained in 12 U.S.C. 5343(c) which states the Office shall issue rules, regulations, and orders to the extent necessary to carry out the purposes and duties of the Office. The Office must consult with the Chairperson of the Council under § 5343(c) prior to the promulgation of any rules—this consultation occurred prior to the publication of the rule.
The collection requires reporting by certain U.S. central counterparties (“CCPs”) for repo transactions. The collection serves two primary purposes:
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before December 1, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Final regulations.
The Secretary establishes new regulations on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program under 34 CFR 685.219 by adding or clarifying provisions to exclude employers that engage in specific enumerated illegal activities such that they have a substantial illegal purpose, including defining obligations and processes tied to making such a determination of an employer, clarifying that borrowers will receive full credit for work performed, until the effective date of the Secretary's determination that an employer is no longer a qualifying employer under the rule; and establishing methods for an employer to regain eligibility following a determination of ineligibility by the Secretary. These regulations ensure that taxpayer dollars are not misused by preventing PSLF benefits from going to individuals employed by organizations that have a substantial illegal purpose. The revisions strengthen accountability, enhance program integrity, and protect hardworking taxpayers from shouldering the cost of improper subsidies granted to employees of organizations that undermine national security and American values through criminal activity.
These regulations are effective July 1, 2026. For the implementation dates of the regulatory provisions, see the Implementation Date of These Regulations in
Tamy Abernathy, Office of Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 987-0385. Email:
The Department of Education (Department) is committed to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not used to support organizations engaged in unlawful activities. To uphold this principle, the Secretary will exclude organizations engaged in specific enumerated activities such that they have a substantial illegal purpose from being considered qualifying employers under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. The activities indicative of a substantial illegal purpose include aiding and abetting violations of Federal immigration laws, supporting terrorism or engaging in violence for the purpose of obstructing or influencing Federal Government policy, engaging in the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children in violation of Federal or state law, engaging in the trafficking of children to another State for purposes of emancipation from their lawful parents in violation of Federal or State law, engaging in a pattern of aiding and abetting illegal discrimination, and engaging in a pattern of violating State laws. This action aligns with President Trump's Executive Order
The final regulations—
* Amend § 685.219(b) to modify the existing structure of the subsection into the regulatory paragraph structure.
* Amend § 685.219(b) to add definitions for: aiding or abetting, chemical castration or mutilation, child or children, foreign terrorist organizations, illegal discrimination, other Federal Immigration laws, substantial illegal purpose, surgical castration or mutilation, terrorism, trafficking, violating State law, and violence for the purpose of obstructing or influencing Federal Government policy.
* Amend § 685.219(c) to establish that on, or after, July 1, 2026, no payment made by a borrower shall be credited as a qualifying payment for PSLF for any month that a qualifying employer is no longer eligible as a qualifying employer for the PSLF program. Borrowers will receive full credit for work performed until the effective date of the Secretary's determination that an employer engaged in illegal activities such that it has a substantial illegal purpose under the rule.
* Amend § 685.219(e) to require the Secretary to notify borrowers of a qualifying employer's status if the qualifying employer is at risk of becoming or becomes ineligible to participate in the PSLF program.
* Amend § 685.219(g) to clarify that a borrower may not request reconsideration of a determination by the Secretary that resulted in the employer losing status as a qualifying employer because the employer has a substantial illegal purpose.
* Add § 685.219(h) to establish that the Secretary determines by a preponderance of the evidence, and after notice and opportunity to respond, and consideration of materiality, that a qualifying employer has engaged in activities enumerated in paragraph (b)(30) on or after July 1, 2026, such that the employer has a substantial illegal purpose. Also, the Secretary will presume certain actions are conclusive evidence that the employer engaged in activities such that it has a substantial illegal purpose.
* Add § 685.219(i) to establish that the Secretary will initiate the process for determining whether a qualifying employer engaged in activities such that it has a substantial illegal purpose when (1) the Secretary receives an application in which the employer fails to certify that it did not participate in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose, or (2) the Secretary otherwise determines that the qualifying employer engaged in such activities under the standard set forth in § 685.219(h). The Secretary made a minor technical change from the NPRM to remove an extraneous word “which” from (i)(1)(ii). Further, paragraph (i)(2) clarifies that the Secretary may consider organizations that share the same identification number or other unique identifier to be separate entities if the organization is operating separately and distinctly from another entity with the same identification number (
* Add § 685.219(j) to establish that an employer that loses PSLF eligibility and desires to regain eligibility could regain qualifying employer status either (1) 10 years from the date the Secretary makes
* Add § 685.219(k) to require that, if an employer regains eligibility to participate in the PSLF program, the Secretary updates, within 30 days, the qualifying employer list.
The PSLF program was established by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (CCRAA), Public Law 110-84, 121 Stat. 84. In particular, the CCRAA amended section 455(m) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), to allow for cancellation of remaining loan balances for eligible Direct Loan borrowers after they made 120 monthly payments under a qualifying repayment plan while working in a qualifying public service.
Following the enactment of the CCRAA, the Department promulgated PSLF regulations at 34 CFR 685.219, which became effective on July 1, 2009.
Since its original promulgation, 34 CFR 685.219 has been amended seven times.
Of these amendments, two amendments promulgated in 2020 and 2022, respectively, have substantively changed the criteria for qualifying employment for the purposes of participation in PSLF. In 2020, the definition of “public service organization” was substantively changed to allow employees of organizations engaged in religious activities (regardless of whether the borrower's duties included religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing) to be eligible for PSLF. This change was made in response to the United States Supreme Court decision in
The Department, in this final rule, establishes that to be considered a qualifying employer for purposes of the PSLF program, an organization must not engage in illegal activity such that it has a substantial illegal purpose. Organizations that break the law such that they have a substantial illegal purpose are actively harming the public good.
Below, we address the Secretary's broad authority to engage in rulemaking on this topic and provide a brief discussion of the relevant statutory authority regarding what type of organization constitutes a qualifying employer for the purposes of PSLF, the implementation of that authority, and relevant changes to 34 CFR 685.219 since its original promulgation. Additionally, we discuss how the illegality doctrine utilized by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) serves as a basis for the Department to promulgate regulations to exclude organizations that have engaged in certain illegal activities from the definition of qualifying employers.
The negotiated rulemaking committee that convened June 30 through July 2, 2025, considered draft regulatory text and did not reach consensus because one negotiator disagreed with the draft regulatory language.
On August 18, 2025, the Secretary published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM included the Department's proposed regulations, and these final regulations reflect and respond to the public comments received on the regulatory proposals in the NPRM. These final regulations also contain changes from the NPRM, which are fully explained in the Analysis of Public Comments and Changes section of this document, where applicable.
For borrowers, the final rule will remove PSLF eligibility whenever they are employed by organizations that do not qualify under the revised criteria. In cases where an employer is deemed to have engaged in activities that breach Federal or State law, affected borrowers will no longer receive credit toward loan forgiveness for the months worked after the determination date of ineligibility as made by the Secretary. However, borrowers will receive full credit for work performed until the effective date of the Secretary's determination that they are no longer a qualifying employer for the purposes of the PSLF program. Although this may delay or prevent loan forgiveness for a subset of borrowers, the overall design of the regulations, including advance notice, transparency around
For taxpayers, the final rule reduces the risk of improper use of taxpayer funds by ensuring that credit toward loan forgiveness is only granted in circumstances where individuals are actually engaging in lawful public service. Employers that engage in unlawful activity are not serving the public interest because their actions harm their communities and the public good. By limiting PSLF eligibility to borrowers employed by organizations that do not engage in unlawful conduct, the rule reinforces appropriate commonsense stewardship of Federal funds. Although the exact budgetary impact will depend on the number and size of employers that do not meet the revised definition in this final rule, the regulations are expected to reduce PSLF-related discharges in cases where forgiveness would otherwise go to borrowers employed at organizations acting contrary to the public good.
For the Department, the rule introduces new administrative responsibilities that include reviewing employer conduct, issuing determinations, notifying borrowers of status changes, and entering into and overseeing corrective action plans. Although these tasks will require the reallocation of Department staff and system resources, the use of existing standards, such as definitions grounded in Federal law and doctrines adopted by other agencies, and processes, will allow the Department to administer the regulations efficiently and consistently to prevent improper payments. As in other regulations administered by the Department, the final rule also codifies a clear evidentiary framework, such as relying on court judgments or plea agreements, which limit the need for new investigative and adjudicative processes.
Taken together, these regulations represent a necessary evolution of PSLF oversight. The costs associated with employer review and administration are modest and proportional to the benefits gained, including reducing improper payments and increasing transparency, program integrity, and taxpayer protection. Most importantly, this final rule strengthens the fundamental purpose of PSLF—to encourage borrowers to enter occupations that improve their communities and advance the public good while also guarding against the diversion of Federal benefits to organizations that harm their fellow Americans by engaging in illegal conduct.
The Department has grouped issues according to the regulatory section or subject and themes, with appropriate sections of the regulations referenced where applicable. We discuss other substantive issues under the sections of the regulations to which they pertain. In instances where individual submissions appeared to be duplicates or near duplicates of comments prepared as part of a write-in campaign, the Department posted one representative sample comment along with the total comment count for that campaign to
We do not address comments that are out of scope. For purposes of this final rule, out-of-scope comments are those that are not addressed in the NPRM altogether. Generally, comments that are outside of the scope of the NPRM are comments that do not discuss the content or impact of the proposed regulations or the Department's evidence or reasons for the proposed regulations.
The Department does not think that the rule will undermine confidence in the PSLF program because the rule will ensure that PSLF benefits are only being received by employees of organizations that are serving the public interest. By limiting eligibility in this way, the rule ensures that taxpayer funds are only used to indirectly subsidize employment at employers who are not breaking the law. As such, this final rule should increase confidence in the PSLF program by reducing improper payments to borrowers working for employers who are breaking the law and harming their respective communities.
The Department acknowledges there may be potentially fewer qualifying employers in rural communities than in more urbanized areas; however, as shown in Table 5.4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis of this final rule, over 1 million borrowers have received PSLF benefits to date across more than 20 sectors of the economy. The Department must balance concerns that disqualification of qualifying employers in an area with few qualifying employers may result in fewer choices for borrowers seeking to benefit from PSLF against its primary responsibility to safeguard American taxpayer dollars and interests by ensuring that PSLF benefits are only received for work at qualifying employers that are serving the public interest.
The Department also disagrees with the assertion that this rule will have a significant macroeconomic impact on labor markets in education, healthcare, and social services in most areas. The commenter did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim, and the Department finds no basis to conclude that such widespread effects are likely. As noted in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, because we expect most organizations to voluntarily comply with the rule, the Department anticipates that it will take action to remove eligibility for less than ten organizations per year. As presented in Table 5.2 of this final rule, to date, approximately 30 percent of borrowers receiving forgiveness through PSLF were employed by non-governmental entities. Accordingly, the Department believes the commenters' assertion is overstated and that this rule will not materially reduce the available workforce in education, healthcare, and social services.
To make sense of these overlapping and arguably duplicative categories, it is important to consider the level of generality at which Congress approached the problem. Indeed, Congress provided for a long list of eligible professions to broadly ensure that all professions that advance the public interest were included in the list. This provides an important clue in interpreting the underlying statute, as the Department must presume that Congress would not want PSLF benefits to be received by employees of organizations that the Department knows are not serving the public interest. This includes organizations that are breaking the law, which is contrary to the public interest. Surely, Congress would not want to reward organizations that break the law and have a substantial illegal purpose by indirectly subsidizing their organizations by providing loan forgiveness to their employees.
Furthermore, although it is possible that the IRS could take independent action to revoke Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status from an organization engaging in illegal conduct, that same organization (absent action from the Department) could remain eligible for PSLF (assuming it still met the requisite criteria for nonprofit organizations) and continue to employ individuals in public service jobs if those jobs meet another part of the definition under 20 U.S.C. 1087e(m)(3). For example, an organization that is organized as a nonprofit and provides State-funded prekindergarten services could lose Section 501(c)(3) status under the Internal Revenue Code but remain an eligible employer under previous versions of the Department's regulation. Similarly, an organization that the Department determines has a substantial illegal purpose may continue to be exempt under Section 501(c)(3) because its tax-exempt status has not been revoked, a determination made by the IRS. This final rule provides that the Department can act in these circumstances, removing eligibility when the Department finds the organization has engaged in illegal activities such that it has a substantial illegal purpose.
This rule advances the statutory scheme Congress created in section 455(m)(3)(B) of the PSLF statute in the HEA, which includes multiple references to public service in defining public service job.
The Department will solely enforce this rule against organizations that participate in illegal activity such that they have a substantial illegal purpose. Congress, through the HEA, granted broad authority to regulate title IV programs. The preponderance of the evidence standard is well established in administrative law for civil adjudications and is fair and consistent with longstanding Federal practice. It ensures decisions are grounded in fact, not speculation, and allows the Department to act promptly to protect both borrowers and taxpayers. Here, in applying the preponderance of the evidence standard to the substantial illegal purpose test, the Secretary will need to find that it is more likely than not that an organization's illegal activity is more than an insubstantial part of its activities that advance an illegal purpose. Plea agreements or admissions of illegal conduct in settlements could provide sufficient proof of unlawful activity to warrant program action, ensuring accountability without waiting for final judicial or administrative findings that could otherwise delay enforcement and allow misconduct to persist. The Department has the responsibility to safeguard PSLF and ensure taxpayer funds are directed only to encourage lawful public service. This evidentiary framework provides the Department with discretion to act swiftly to ensure that taxpayer resources are not wasted to ensure fairness for employers and borrowers.
The standards are limited to ensuring that employers meet statutory requirements for lawful public service activities. Organizations that abide by Federal law and the laws of the State in which they operate will not be subject to potential loss of eligibility. PSLF employer eligibility is not conditioned on political alignment or conformity with any administration policies. Determinations regarding whether an organization has engaged in illegal activities such that it has a substantial illegal purpose will be objective and based on evidence such as judgments of State or Federal courts, guilty pleas of the organization, or statements by the organization admitting that it engaged in such conduct (such as in a settlement agreement). It will not be colored by the policy preferences of an employer. Here, the Department is not regulating viewpoint and will enforce the regulation in a manner that does not take viewpoint into account. This approach does not interfere with the policy preferences or advocacy efforts of public service organizations and safeguards taxpayer funds by ensuring benefits are delivered only to organizations that are not engaged in illegal activities such that they have a substantial illegal purpose. The Department will administer the PSLF program neutrally to keep the program focused on its purpose of supporting careers in qualified public service, notwithstanding the policy preferences or viewpoints of the public service employer.
If the Department takes action under this regulation, impacted entities will receive notice and an opportunity to respond prior to any determination.
The history surrounding the creation and use of the illegality doctrine is instructive in assessing whether this rule is unconstitutional or is a form of executive overreach. Indeed, courts have upheld the use of the illegality doctrine in the context of administering the Internal Revenue Code relating to organizations that engaged in activities that are illegal or otherwise contrary to public policy.
The Department considered alternatives here, namely that because the IRS could take independent action, it may not be necessary for the Department to make the changes in this rule. However, just like all executive branch agencies, the IRS has resource constraints that limit its ability to act against organizations under the illegality doctrine and must exercise some degree of prosecutorial discretion. This means that, at least at times, the illegality doctrine will be underenforced. In other words, there may be instances where some organizations that have a substantial illegal purpose continue to have IRS tax-exempt status.
The Department has a heightened interest in ensuring that the PSLF program is administered in a manner that safeguards against improper payments. Indeed, the median balance forgiven for borrowers through PSLF is $65,000 so the Department has a significant monetary interest in ensuring that only months of work in lawful public service employment are counted toward forgiveness.
With respect to the commenter's assertion that the rule is duplicative because State taxing authorities or other parts of State government may also act against organizations engaged in activities that amount to having a substantial illegal purpose, the Department disagrees. State action has no bearing on eligibility for the PSLF program, so any State action will not necessarily impact employer eligibility for PSLF, which necessitates the need for the Department to be able to take independent action.
Regarding the comments raising the potential for the rule to conflict with existing Federal laws or State professional codes, the Department does not believe this rule conflicts with any laws. If there were a conflict between Federal law and State law with respect to the illegal conduct considered by the Secretary under this final rule, ordinary principles of Federal preemption law would apply.
As mentioned above, the history surrounding the creation and use of the illegality doctrine is instructive in assessing whether this final rule is unconstitutional or is a form of executive overreach. Indeed, courts have upheld the use of the illegality doctrine in the context of administering the Internal Revenue Code to revoke tax-exempt status from organizations that have a substantial illegal purpose. The Department rejects the supposition that the illegality doctrine can only be applied within the context of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The way the IRS interprets the Internal Revenue Code is very similar to what the Department is doing in interpreting the phrase “public service.”
In crafting this rule, the Department looked to President Trump's Executive Order on
The Department understands the March 7, 2025, Executive Order as being a directive from the President regarding how he would like the Department to exercise our prosecutorial discretion in taking enforcement actions where organizations are engaged in illegal conduct, and this final rule is focused on specific illegal conduct that he has determined that the Department should focus on. Finally, the Department believes that the identification of specific forms of unlawful activity will have the effect of reducing uncertainty for borrowers when considering prospective employers and for employers when making business decisions.
Borrowers deserve certainty and taxpayers deserve assurance that their dollars are used to encourage lawful activities that promote the public good. This framework delivers both by aligning PSLF with lawful public service and protecting the program's integrity.
The Department continues to assert that PSLF employer determinations will not be based on the viewpoint or advocacy positions of nonprofit or governmental employers or their employees. Instead, the Department will anchor eligibility exclusively in lawful service to the public, consistent with 20 U.S.C. 1087e(m)(3)(B), which defines qualifying employment to include all government and Section 501(c)(3) organizations. Borrowers and employers may continue to engage in lawful advocacy without fear that PSLF will be used as a tool of ideological enforcement.
According to commenters, the absence of clear definitions deprives borrowers and employers of fair notice and creates the risk of arbitrary enforcement. Commenters also stated that granting broad discretion to the Secretary without certain procedural safeguards could undermine due process by enabling decisions that could be inconsistent, opaque, or politically motivated.
Additionally, some commenters said the disqualification process violates constitutional due process by failing to provide adequate procedural safeguards and lacks a clear process for notice, a formal hearing, or a meaningful appeal to a neutral adjudicator.
Other commenters stated that the rule is procedurally unjust because it denies individual borrowers due process by failing to provide a clear, sufficient, or accessible appeals process to challenge an employer's disqualification. Commenters argued that employees are more directly and personally harmed under the rule, and as such, they should have recourse to correct potential errors, especially as some employers may choose not to challenge their disqualification.
The Department acknowledges that its original definition in the draft regulations first presented to the negotiated rulemaking committee was broader and less precise than what was proposed in the NPRM. To ensure employers and borrowers have fair notice, and after having discussed issues and concerns during negotiated rulemaking, the Department refined the definition of “substantial illegal purpose” and several other definitions in the NPRM to better clarify the illegal activities that could lead to an employer being disqualified from participation in PSLF.
Additionally, under the process proposed in the NPRM, in section 682.219(j), employers will be provided with a notice, a transparent record, and an opportunity to review, respond, and rebut the Department's findings to a neutral adjudicator, thereby ensuring that due process is afforded to all impacted stakeholders and applied fairly and consistently. The rule also provides an opportunity for employers to regain eligibility by following a corrective action plan to come into compliance after a loss of eligibility. If the processes established in this final rule do not resolve a concern, employers can seek judicial review of the Department's decisions in Federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides default rules establishing procedures for judicial review of Federal agency actions. 5 U.S.C. 706. If an employer has exhausted the administrative remedies established in this rule and meets all of the other legal requirements to file a complaint, it can challenge the Department in Federal court.
Finally, the Department believes that employers are better situated than borrowers to respond to preliminary findings from the Department about the employer's eligibility. Employees may not have sufficient information to provide the Department with a full evidentiary framework to consider because they may not be privy to employer actions or decisions. Employers may include information in their submissions regarding the impact eligibility determinations may have on their employees.
Approximately 50 commenters further contended that the rule would disproportionately affect organizations serving marginalized or disadvantaged populations, such as those providing legal services, social support, and educational or healthcare access to low-income, minority, and immigrant communities. These commenters asserted that narrowing PSLF eligibility based on organizational mission or activities could effectively exclude nonprofit employers that advance equity and civil rights goals (
As discussed throughout, the Department promulgates this rule under its authority in 20 U.S.C. 1087e(m) and HEA to administer the PSLF program and ensure consistent, lawful application of its requirements. In evaluating comments addressing constitutional issues, the Department considered whether any aspect of this rule implicates procedural or substantive rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The Department carefully considered concerns regarding the Fifth Amendment and concludes that the rule is fully consistent with constitutional requirements. The rulemaking process provides notice and an opportunity for public comment, as required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), satisfying the procedural component of due process. This final rule applies prospectively and does not rescind previously granted loan forgiveness or otherwise retroactively alter qualifying employment determinations. Accordingly, it does not implicate a constitutionally protected property interest.
With respect to the alleged disparate impact on organizations serving marginalized populations, the Department emphasizes that PSLF eligibility is determined according to statutory criteria established in 20 U.S.C. 1087e(m). Eligibility determinations are made by considering the activities employers engage in that are unlawful either under Federal or State law, without respect to the impact it may or may not have on individuals based upon any protected characteristics. This final rule interprets those provisions in a neutral manner, without regard to the employer's mission, ideological orientation, or the population it serves. The mere disparate impact of a facially neutral rule does not, without evidence of intentional discrimination, establish a constitutional violation.
The Department therefore finds that the rule neither infringes upon due process rights nor results in an unlawful disparate treatment or denial of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.
Accordingly, the Department continues to assert that lawful advocacy or provision of services to immigrant communities, LGBTQ+ individuals, or racial justice organizations does not disqualify an employer from participating in the PSLF program. Only where a determination has been made that an organization is engaging in illegal activities such that it has a substantial illegal purpose will PSLF eligibility be at issue.
The Department rejects the contention that this rule is barred by promissory estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is commonly understood to be inapplicable in disputes between private parties and the Federal Government. Michael J. Cole,
Even if promissory estoppel was applicable to the Department, the required elements for a promissory estoppel claim could not be satisfied by a borrower whose employer loses its qualifying employer status as a result of this rule. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is rooted in detrimental reliance and requires proof that there was a promise or representation made, that the promise or representation was relied upon by the party asserting the estoppel in such a manner as to change his position for the worse, and that the promise's reliance was reasonable and should have been reasonably expected by the promisor.
With regard to borrowers employed by organizations that are currently qualifying employers, this final rule has no retroactive effect because any qualifying payment that the borrower made during the period of time that such employer was considered a qualifying employer will continue to count as such, including any payments made during the employer reconsideration process, even if the employer ultimately loses that status. In any case, an organization cannot lose or be denied qualifying employer status unless it engaged in illegal activities such that it has a substantial illegal purpose on or after July 1, 2026, meaning that payments made by borrowers employed by a qualifying organization could not possibly cease to be considered qualifying payments until the effective date of this final rule, at the very earliest. Taken together, the rule cannot and does not have a retroactive effect.
Furthermore, the Department rejects the argument that this final rule conflicts with the Supreme Court's rulings in the
Furthermore, the Department disagrees that this final rule penalizes past lawful conduct. All the activities included within the definition of “substantial illegal purpose” require a violation of relevant State or Federal laws on or after July 1, 2026. An organization will not, and cannot, be penalized for past lawful conduct. To the extent that an organization engages in conduct which later becomes illegal as a result of a change in State or Federal law, only conduct occurring after the effective date of such a change could be considered relevant when considering whether the organization has a substantial illegal purpose, as the conduct was not illegal until that point in time.
Finally, the Department rejects the argument that any new restrictions on qualifying employment must only be applied to new borrowers. The MPN signed by each borrower explicitly states that its terms and conditions “are determined by the HEA and other federal laws and regulations.” MPN at 3. Section 1 of the BRR that is provided with the MPN further clarifies that that amendments to the HEA and other Federal laws and regulations may amend the terms of the MPN and specifically cautions that “[d]epending on the effective date of the amendment, amendments to the [HEA or other Federal laws and regulations] may modify or remove a benefit that existed
The purpose of using such terms is to set clear standards for PSLF program eligibility, not to create new interpretations. The Department will also rely on existing findings of unlawful activity by courts or other regulators where appropriate. To the extent that State laws may vary, the Department will defer to the judgments of State courts in determining what constitutes unlawful activity within the jurisdiction where the conduct occurs.
In instances where an organization has locations in more than one State and only broke the law in one or a few States, the Department may still find that the organization has a substantial illegal purpose by weighing all the relevant evidence. However, the Department will not find an organization to have engaged in illegal activity (and weigh that evidence under the substantial illegal purpose test) if the underlying conduct occurred in a State in which the conduct was legal. In other words, unless the State where the conduct occurs prohibits such conduct, the organization has not engaged in illegal conduct, and the Department will not use that conduct as a basis for removing employers from the PSLF program.
When considering, for PSLF eligibility purposes, whether an organization has aided and abetted illegal discrimination or violations of Federal immigration laws, the Department will carefully examine the balance of the evidence to determine both whether certain unlawful activities occurred and whether there is “objective indicia” that the organization sought to further those unlawful activities.
Consistent with President Trump's Executive Order on
Under this final rule, the Department will update this list only after it takes action to remove an employer, and borrowers who work for that employer will be unable to receive credit for their work toward PSLF forgiveness only after the date of the Department's determination under subsection (h) or after any reconsideration requests or actions by the employer in accordance with subsection (j) of these regulations. These determinations will not be made retroactively, meaning that borrowers will receive credit for any work prior to the Department's determination. This final rule will ensure that borrowers have notice and will have an opportunity to change employers if they wish to continue to make progress toward loan forgiveness through PSLF.
Additionally, for a borrower to receive credit toward PSLF, the borrower must have a public service job working for a qualifying employer. Affiliates, contractors, and subcontractors that are not organizations or agencies meeting the definition of a qualifying employer do not offer public service jobs, so borrowers will not receive PSLF credit by working for those employers. This policy is not changed by this final rule.
The Department acknowledges that when employers undergo these types of changes it may create uncertainty for borrowers; however, the PSLF statute is clear when a job is no longer qualifying. To give borrowers credit for working in jobs that do not qualify would violate the statute, so the Department cannot make changes to the regulations to address employers that transition out of their qualifying status.
Qualifying employers who are under review because they may have a substantial illegal purpose will remain as qualifying employers until a determination is made by the Secretary. This approach respects due process while safeguarding the PSLF program from abuse.
The narrow scope of this provision limits its application and provides clear notice to borrowers and employers.
The PSLF program will honor public service, not penalize borrowers for administrative disputes, and borrowers will retain the ability to pursue employment at another qualified employer. Borrowers will be protected, employers will be held accountable, and taxpayers will know their dollars are used responsibly and in pursuit of lawful activities.
Some commenters wrote about specific borrowers who have long-term employment contracts, including medical residents. Commenters expressed the belief that medical residents, and extended term contract employees, have additional restrictions surrounding their employment, limiting their ability to switch jobs in the event their employer loses PSLF eligibility. Some commenters went so far as to claim that losing PSLF eligibility could have career ending consequences if transition flexibility was not provided.
With respect to the commenter's request that we clarify that a borrower's
The Department acknowledges that there may be some medical resident borrowers who may face heightened challenges in changing employers due to the complex terms of their respective employment contracts. Although the Department acknowledges that this puts some borrowers in a more difficult situation, since the Department does not believe the interests of these borrowers outweighs the Department's interests in preserving the integrity of the PSLF program. Delaying the consequences of disqualification would mean that taxpayers would continue to indirectly subsidize the employment of individuals working for an employer engaged in illegal activity. Providing a transition period could reduce employers' incentives to comply with this final rule, including by delaying the timely development and implementation of a corrective action plan with the Department. As such, the Department does not believe that providing a transition period is appropriate. At the same time, the Department notes when an employer loses eligibility, borrowers who work for that employer will receive credit for the month in which eligibility is lost. For example, if an employer loses eligibility on the third day of a given month, the borrower will receive credit for that month.
With respect to immigration law, the Department disagrees that there is wide variation in immigration law across the country. The Federal Government has broad powers to regulate immigration law, and the immigration laws are uniform on the national level.
At the same time, the Department disagrees with commenters that a component's illegal actions cannot taint the entire organization. For example, an organization that supports terrorism, but also provides food to low-income individuals, likely has a substantial illegal purpose. Providing food to low-income individuals, as admirable as it may be, does not necessarily immunize the organization from its other illegal conduct. The Department acknowledges that this approach may mean that certain borrowers that work for organizations that have a substantial illegal purpose will become ineligible for PSLF, even in instances where the borrower is not engaged in illegal activity. However, the Department believes that its interest in protecting taxpayer resources from going to organizations that harm the public good because they have a substantial illegal purpose outweighs the interests of borrowers in these narrow circumstances.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” as defined by that Executive Order and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) 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;
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
The Department estimates the net budgetary impacts to be −$1.616 billion from reductions in transfers from the Federal Government to borrowers who no longer receive credit toward loan forgiveness under PSLF. Quantified economic impacts include annualized transfers of −$179 million at 3 percent discounting and −$191 million at 7 percent discounting, and annual quantified costs of $0.3 to $0.4 million related to compliance costs and administrative updates to government systems. Additionally, the Department expects to allocate a portion of current full-time equivalent employment (FTE) to support the systems, compliance, and oversight functions of this final rule on a continuing basis. The Department estimates that a total of 10 FTEs will be allocated annually on an ongoing basis to systems, compliance, and oversight activities associated with this final rule, with a possible reduction in later outyears as noncompliant employers are disqualified and the expected deterrent effects of the final rule are realized. It is also important to note that given that the average PSLF loan forgiveness payment amount to date, as shown in Table 5.4, is $75,900 per borrower, such a shift of current staff resources from performing lower value activities to preventing and deterring improper payments in the PSLF program is likely to result in lower overall net costs of these staff resources than without the final rule. Therefore, based on these estimates, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this final action is “economically significant” under section 3(f)(1) and subject to OMB review under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires an agency to:
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and considering, among other things and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) Choose among alternative regulatory approaches and select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives, such as user fees or marketable permits, to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” OIRA has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
The Department finds that the benefits of this final rule outweigh and will justify their costs. In choosing
Elsewhere in this section under the
President Trump's Executive Order on
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
The Department has identified a critical and urgent need for targeted regulatory reform within the PSLF program. The PSLF program, established to encourage public service careers by offering loan forgiveness to eligible borrowers, has faced several operational challenges, eligibility concerns, and administrative burdens that undermine its effectiveness. Despite the program's intent, the current regulatory framework does not restrict eligibility if an organization has a substantial illegal purpose unless the organization ceases to qualify for another reason, such as having its tax-exempt status revoked by the IRS. As a result, the Department is currently indirectly subsidizing employers who are not engaged in public service because they are engaged in illegal activity and have no independent mechanism to remove such employers from the program.
In response to these challenges, the Department implements targeted regulatory changes designed to strengthen the program's integrity by limiting benefits to borrowers employed by organizations that meet the established public service criteria, including working for employers who perform a public good. This final rule refines the requirements for qualifying employers and makes certain that PSLF benefits are distributed only to those working for organizations that provide a public service, aligned with the goals of the HEA and consistent with the intent of Congress.
The PSLF program is a component of Federal student loan policy that provides benefits to individuals who enter and continue in public service employment by offering cancellation of remaining Direct student loan balance(s) after 120 qualifying monthly payments and at least 10 years of full-time employment in qualified public service jobs, which are both required under the PSLF program. However, over time, the
The Department acknowledges that implementing the regulations will generate costs. These costs primarily fall into three categories: Department administrative costs, compliance costs for employers, and potential disruptions for borrowers. However, these costs must be viewed in the context of the long-term benefits that the regulations will provide.
One of the immediate costs associated with these regulatory changes will be the need for the Department to update its systems, train staff and vendors, and implement new compliance and monitoring processes. The Department will also need to enhance communication systems to notify employers and borrowers of any changes to a qualifying employer's status in the PSLF program. These changes will require new costs for minor system changes and for changes and increases in customer service activities.
Initial estimates suggest that the administrative costs for the Department will range from $1.5 million to $3 million annually during the first two years of implementation. These funds, from appropriated Student Aid Administration account funds, will be used to ensure that the Department can effectively manage the new employer eligibility determination process, update systems, and conduct necessary training for staff and stakeholders. Also, as noted earlier, on a continuing basis the Department estimates that a total of 10 FTEs will be allocated annually, with a possible reduction in later outyears as noncompliant employers are disqualified and the expected deterrent effects of the final rule are realized.
In general, the Department believes that most employers will already be complying with the requirements of the rule because the employers already have an existing obligation to follow the law. Some employers may need to make changes to ensure that they follow the law and meet the new eligibility criteria under the regulations if they want to participate in the PSLF program. This will involve reviewing their activities to ensure they are not engaged in any actions that will disqualify them from participating in the PSLF program. For some employers who are not currently following the law, especially smaller organizations or those with limited resources, this process may necessitate consultation with legal counsel or operational adjustments.
Compliance costs for employers are expected to vary by organization, depending on the organization's size and complexity. Larger organizations, such as hospitals or universities, who are not currently complying with the law may incur higher costs as they assess their practices and make any necessary changes to align with this final rule. These costs primarily result from the costs of legal counsel, restructuring efforts, and changes to the organization's documentation processes. At the same time, many organizations are accustomed to attesting to the fact that they are not violating Federal and State law as a condition to participate in other government or non-governmental programs. In circumstances like these, organizations may not need to exert any additional effort, or at most will need to dedicate a
The most significant impacts on borrowers may stem from potential misunderstandings of the final rule that may lead to borrower confusion that delays application of the forgiveness benefit. Borrowers who are employed by organizations disqualified under the new rule will no longer be eligible to receive credit toward loan forgiveness while working for that employer, except in certain circumstances described in the rule. These borrowers would need to transition to qualifying employers to continue receiving credit for their payments. Borrowers who misunderstand the new rule may apply for forgiveness without knowing or understanding the implications of this final rule on their former or current employer, as they may no longer be a qualifying employer.
Despite the initial and ongoing costs, the long-term benefits of this final rule include increased integrity and long-term savings for taxpayers. The most significant benefit of the regulations is the improvement in the integrity of the PSLF program. By excluding employers engaged in illegal activities such that they have a substantial illegal purpose from the program, the Department affirms taxpayer dollars are only used to support borrowers working for organizations that are engaged in lawful public service. This change will directly address concerns about improper disbursements and misuse of Federal funds. This change also addresses concerns that the Department is indirectly subsidizing illegal activities that the Federal Government broadly aims to prevent.
The PSLF program provides generous benefits to individuals in public service, and these changes will improve the integrity of the program. By revising the PSLF program regulations to only reward service with organizations engaged in lawful activities, the Department expects to achieve substantial savings, as presented in the budget impacts of this final rule.
One of the most important benefits of the regulations is the long-term savings they will generate for taxpayers. By eliminating improper payments, the Department estimates that these regulations will save taxpayers $1.616 billion over the next ten years, resulting from a reduction in PSLF tied to illegal activity. The expected reduction in disbursements will ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent more efficiently and effectively because the benefits borrowers receive are not indirectly supporting organizations engaged in activities such that it has a substantial illegal purpose.
The regulatory changes for the PSLF program aim to enhance the program's integrity and transparency. The regulations will help reduce improper payments and ensure that the program supports individuals employed by eligible organizations that genuinely provide a public service. With these changes, the PSLF program will be more accountable and transparent.
Table 5.1 provides an estimate of the net Federal budgetary impact of these regulations that are summarized in Table 3.1 of this RIA. This includes both the effects of a modification to existing loan cohorts and costs for loan cohorts from 2026 to 2035. A cohort reflects all loans originated in a given fiscal year. Consistent with the requirements of the Credit Reform Act of 1990, budget cost estimates for the student loan programs reflect the estimated net present value of all future non-administrative Federal costs associated with a cohort of loans. The approach to estimating the net
This final rule defines several terms related to qualifying employment for PSLF and amends the definition of a qualified employer to exclude organizations that engage in activities such that it has a substantial illegal purpose. This is consistent with President's Trump's Executive Order,
1. A final judgment by a State or Federal court, whereby the employer is found to have engaged in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose;
2. A plea of guilty or
3. A settlement that includes admission by the employer that it engaged in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose.
Employer qualification will be linked to the E.I.N. used for reporting to the IRS, therefore, employees in one area or agency may be affected by the activities of employees in other organizations under the same E.I.N. Government agencies may have many service areas under a single E.I.N.
The PSLF application data includes variables that distinguish non-profit employers and government employers, as well as the level of government employers. Table 5.2 summarizes the split between all borrowers who have received PSLF in the Department's data as of September 25, 2025, whose greatest time in qualifying employment was with government or non-profit organizations.
Table 5.3 splits the government category into Federal, State, and local levels. We assume that Federal agencies will comply with the law and do not expect a reduction in forgiveness for Federal employees.
Based on the activities identified in this final rule, it is likely that organizations in some fields are more likely to be affected than others, either by loss of eligibility, the deterrent effect on their activities, difficulty recruiting employees, or by their employees not being granted PSLF forgiveness and seeking alternate employment. Regardless of the type of employer, service areas that could be most affected by the regulation include, but are not limited to, legal services, governance, social work, healthcare, K-12 education, and higher education. Existing data on employers of borrowers who received forgiveness does not include a service category and employer names do not always indicate what an organization does, but the Department analyzed this data to estimate what share of borrowers who have achieved forgiveness fall into certain service areas and their average forgiveness.
A portion of employers cannot be classified because some employer names give no indication to their service area, contain misspellings, or have names that do not contain any of the keywords matched. These E.I.N.s are categorized as “Other”. Approximately 91 percent of borrowers who have received PSLF were categorized into a subsector category, leaving 9 percent in the “Other” category. In this analysis, we assume that the distribution of borrowers and subsectors in the future will reflect that of those who have received forgiveness. Table 5.4 summarizes the results by service area.
As we expect most employers to certify that they do not engage in activities with a substantially illegal purpose, the information in Table 5.4 informed our estimates of potential reductions in qualifying employers for PSLF but does not directly translate to the percentage of borrowers assigned to achieve forgiveness in our assumptions for the regulation. We also recognize that employers in other employment subsectors could engage in an activity that results in a loss of eligibility but estimate that these will be anomalies or very small percentages. Therefore, we have included a percentage for all other categories, and some sensitivity runs that are described in the
The Department estimated the budgetary impact of the provisions in this final rule through changes to the PSLF assignment within the Department's IDR assumption. PSLF is randomly assigned to borrowers in our IDR model sample based on percentages that vary by the cohort range in which they enter repayment and highest education level as presented in Table 5.5.
We expect the regulations to have a deterrent effect, reducing the likelihood of qualifying employers engaging in illegal activities. Additionally, borrowers have the option of shifting employers to complete their 120 months of qualifying payments. Therefore, we do not expect a large reduction in borrowers achieving PSLF forgiveness, although savings of $1.6 billion over ten years is significant. We have not increased the effect for future cohorts of loans because, while potential ineligibility starts with July 1, 2026, the effective date of this final rule, employers' ability to appeal and get reinstated and employees' ability to shift positions means the pattern is not necessarily a continued increase in ineligibility.
The changes made in Table 5.5 were derived from applying reductions between 0-5 percent to the employment subsectors identified in Table 5.4 as being most likely to be affected by the regulation (legal, healthcare, social work, higher education, K-12 education, and governance). This results in an estimated total reduction of approximately 0-2 percent.
As explained in the
The combined effect of the changes to the percentages in Table 5.5 reduces the number of borrowers achieving PSLF in our IDR assumption and results in the cost savings presented in Table 5.6.
As required by OMB Circular A-4, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of these regulations. Table 5.7 provides our best estimate of the changes in annual monetized transfers that may result from these regulations. Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal Government to affected student loan borrowers.
In the interest of ensuring that these final regulations produce the best possible outcome, we considered a broad range of proposals from internal sources as well as from non-Federal negotiators and members of the public as part of the negotiated rulemaking process. However, the ideas presented during negotiated rulemaking largely mirrored the suggestions that the Department received in public comments. As discussed throughout the preamble and accompanying the discussion of each proposed regulatory provision, the Department believes the final rule will prevent taxpayer-funded PSLF benefits from being improperly provided to individuals who are employed by organizations that engage in activities such that it has a substantial illegal purpose, improve the integrity of the PSLF program, and provide protection for taxpayers.
Among some of the key themes discussed was the establishment of standards anchored in objective, evidenced-based findings. This final rule clarifies definitions of qualifying employers and provides a clear standard of determination. This rule makes clear that employer disqualification requires the Department to find that an employer has engaged in activities such that they have a substantial illegal purpose by a preponderance of the evidence after weighing the employer's illegal conduct, narrowly focusing on only the illegal conduct enumerated in the rule. Commenters also sought to broaden or clarify which entities qualify as “public service organizations”, particularly in edge cases such as nonprofit contractors, hybrid organizations, and religious nonprofits. The Department has carefully considered these requests but remains bound by the statutory language defining a “public service organization”. The Department believes this final rule preserves flexibility to recognize a wide range of nonprofit and governmental employers while ensuring that the core purposes of the PSLF program are preserved.
The Secretary certifies, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This regulatory action does not impose new reporting requirements or compliance burdens on these entities. Any potential effects are minimal, indirect, or result from voluntary participation in a Federal program. Therefore, the Department concludes that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
These regulations are focused on arrangements between the borrower and the Department. As noted in the
Commenters, including Counsel for Justice and Candidly, asserted that the Department's cost estimates ($1.5-3 million) underestimate the true burden of annual employment verification, staff training, and data management. They further suggested that the Department's approach diverges from prior economic analyses and omits recurring employer costs. Two anonymous commenters referenced specific sections of the RIA (
Following the discussion of costs to borrowers and the Federal Government, the Department also considered potential administrative and compliance costs that may be incurred by employers participating in the PSLF program.
Several commenters asserted that the Department's analysis did not fully account for the administrative and compliance costs that nonprofit organizations, hospitals, schools, and government employers may face in assisting borrowers with PSLF employment certification. Commenters referenced the
The Department concludes that any incremental employer burden associated with this final rule is expected to be minimal and does not represent a significant economic impact on small entities or affected sectors. As a result, no changes have been made to the RIA based on these comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that the public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.
Section 685.219(i) of these regulatory changes will require an update to the currently approved Public Service Loan Forgiveness Certification and Application, OMB #1845-0110 (PSLF Form). The Department will amend the PSLF form to include the ability for a qualifying employer to certify that it has not engaged in activity that has a substantial illegal purpose. The burden on this information collection will not significantly change for the borrower to complete the form. This form update will be completed and made available for comment through a full public clearance package before being made available for use by the effective date of the regulations. Any burden changes will be assessed to OMB #1845-0110, Public Service Loan Forgiveness Certification and Application. The amendments to the regulation do not significantly change the estimated number of respondents or responses for individuals in this collection. The Department estimates that there will be a nominal change in the number of borrowers completing the PSLF Form. The Department expects that borrowers who currently work for non-qualifying employers will likely submit a form to either switch employers or because they are uncertain about their employer's eligibility status.
Section 685.219(j) of the final regulation will allow an employer to re-establish eligibility for PSLF if the Secretary approves a corrective action plan. The Department believes that, annually, there will be less than ten employers responding to the Department's notice of an initiated action and/or seeking approval of a corrective action plan. No additional burden has been assessed based on this final rule as the anticipated number of annual respondents falls below ten, which is the minimum required for OMB approval of an information collection.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to comply with or is subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information if the collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of Executive Order 12372 is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and strengthen Federalism. The Executive Order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
Executive Order 13132 requires us to provide meaningful and timely input by State and local elected officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. “Federalism implications” means 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. The regulations do not have Federalism implications.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities, Education, Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Vocational education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of Education amends part 685 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
20 U.S.C. 1070g, 1087a,
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1)
(2) AmeriCorps service means service in a position approved by the Corporation for National and Community Service under section 123 of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12573).
(3)
(i) The use of puberty blockers, including GnRH agonists and other interventions, to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex; and
(ii) The use of sex hormones, such as androgen blockers, estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone, to align an individual's physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(i) To whom an organization issues an IRS Form W-2;
(ii) Who receives an IRS Form W-2 from an organization that has contracted with a qualifying employer to provide payroll or similar services for the qualifying employer, and which provides the Form W-2 under that contract;
(iii) who works as a contracted employee for a qualifying employer in a position or providing services which, under applicable State law, cannot be filled or provided by a direct employee of the qualifying employer.
(10)
(11)
(i) Working in qualifying employment in one or more jobs—
(A) A minimum average of 30 hours per week during the period being certified,
(B) A minimum of 30 hours per week throughout a contractual or employment period of at least 8 months in a 12-month period, such as elementary and secondary school teachers and professors and instructors, in higher education, in which case the borrower is deemed to have worked full time; or
(C) The equivalent of 30 hours per week as determined by multiplying each credit or contact hour taught per week by at least 3.35 in non-tenure track employment at an institution of higher education.
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(i)(A) A United States-based Federal, State, local, or Tribal government organization, agency, or entity, including the U.S. Armed Forces or the National Guard;
(B) A public child or family service agency;
(C) An organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is exempt from taxation under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code;
(D) A Tribal college or university; or
(E) A nonprofit organization that—
(1) Provides a non-governmental public service as defined in this section, attested to by the employer on a form approved by the Secretary; and
(2) Is not a business organized for profit, a labor union, or a partisan political organization; and
(ii) Does not include organizations that engage in activities such that they have a substantial illegal purpose, as defined in this section.
(28)
(i) An income-driven repayment plan under § 685.209;
(ii) The 10-year standard repayment plan under § 685.208(b) or the consolidation loan standard repayment plan with a 10-year repayment term under § 685.208(c); or
(iii) Except for the alternative repayment plan, any other repayment plan if the monthly payment amount is not less than what will have been paid under the 10-year standard repayment plan under § 685.208(b).
(29)
(30)
(i) aiding or abetting violations of 8 U.S.C. 1325 or other Federal immigration laws;
(ii) Supporting terrorism, including by facilitating funding to, or the operations of, cartels designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations consistent with 8 U.S.C. 1189, or by engaging in violence for the purpose of obstructing or influencing Federal Government policy;
(iii) Engaging in the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children in violation of Federal or State law;
(iv) Engaging in the trafficking of children to another State for purposes of emancipation from their lawful parents in violation of Federal or State law;
(v) Engaging in a pattern of aiding and abetting illegal discrimination; or
(vi) Engaging in a pattern of violating State laws as defined in paragraph (b)(34) of this section.
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(i) Trespassing;
(ii) Disorderly conduct;
(iii) Public nuisance;
(iv) Vandalism; or
(v) Obstruction of highways.
(35)
(c) * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, a borrower will be considered to have made monthly payments under paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section by—
(4) Effective on or after July 1, 2026, through a standard as described in paragraph(h)of this section, no payment shall be credited as a qualifying payment for any month subsequent to a determination that a qualifying employer engaged in activities enumerated in paragraph (b)(30) such that it has a substantial illegal purpose, as described in this section.
(e) * * *
(9) If the Secretary has notified the borrower's employer that the employer may no longer satisfy the definition of qualifying employer set forth in paragraph (b)(28) of this section, pending a determination made under paragraph (h) of this section, the Secretary notifies the borrower of the potential change in the employer's status.
(10) If the Secretary has determined the borrower's employer has ceased to be a qualifying employer as a result of a determination made under paragraph(h) of this section, the Secretary notifies the borrower of the change in the employer's status.
(g) * * *
(7) Notwithstanding paragraph (g)(1) of this section, a borrower may not request reconsideration under this paragraph (g) based on the Secretary's determination that the organization lost its status as a qualifying employer due to engaging in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose under the standard described in paragraph (h) of this section.
(h)
(1) The Secretary determines by a preponderance of the evidence, and after notice and opportunity to respond (which is referred to as the “employer reconsideration process”), that a qualifying employer has engaged on or after July 1, 2026, in illegal activities such that it has a substantial illegal purpose by considering the materiality of any illegal activities or actions as described in paragraph (b)(30) of this section. In making such a determination, the Secretary shall presume that any of the following is conclusive evidence that the employer engaged in activities enumerated in paragraph (b)(30):
(i) A final judgment by a State or Federal court, whereby the employer is found to have engaged in illegal activities that have a substantial illegal purpose;
(ii) A plea of guilty or
(iii) A settlement that includes admission by the employer that it engaged in illegal activities that have a substantial illegal purpose described in paragraph (h) of this section.
(2) Nothing in this paragraph (h)(2)shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to determine an employer has a substantial illegal purpose based upon the employer or its employees exercising their First Amendment protected rights, or any other rights protected under the Constitution.
(i)
(1) The Secretary will determine that a qualifying employer violated the standard under paragraph (h) of this section when the Secretary:
(i) Receives an application as referenced under paragraph (e) of this section in which the employer fails to certify that it did not participate in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose; or
(ii) Determines that the qualifying employer engaged in activities such that it has a substantial illegal purpose under paragraph (h) of this section, unless, prior to the issuance of the Secretary's determination, the Secretary includes the factors set forth in paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (i)(1) of this section, the Secretary shall, in the event an employer is operating under a shared identification number or other unique identifier, consider the organization to be separate if the employer is operating separately and distinctly, for the purposes of determining whether an employer is eligible.
(j)
(1) 10 years from the date the Secretary determines the organization engaged in activities such that it has a substantial illegal purpose in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section, if, at or after that time, the organization certifies on a borrower's subsequent application that the organization is no longer engaged in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose as defined in paragraph (b)(30) of this section; or
(2) The Secretary approves a corrective action plan signed by the employer that includes—
(i) a certification by the employer that it is no longer engaging in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose as defined in paragraph (b)(30) of this section;
(ii) a report describing the employer's compliance controls that are designed to ensure that the employer does not continue to engage in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose as defined in paragraph (b)(30) of this section in the future; and
(iii) any other terms or conditions imposed by the Secretary designed to ensure that employers do not engage in actions or activities that have a substantial illegal purpose.
(k)