Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ), the regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

Section 340.6(a) of the regulations provides that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.

APHIS has received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 25-321-01p) from Bayer U.S.-Crop Science seeking a determination of nonregulated status for MON 94637 Lepidopteran-protected Soybean ( Glycine max ), referred to as MON 94637, which has been developed using genetic engineering to express two insecticidal proteins to protect against feeding damage caused by target lepidopteran pests. The petition states that the information provided indicates that MON 94637 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and therefore should not be regulated under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

As part of our decision-making process regarding the organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepared a draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) to assess the plant pest risk of the organism. APHIS' draft PPRA compared the pest risk posed by MON 94637 with that of the nonmodified variety from which it was derived. The draft PPRA concluded that MON 94637 is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to the nonmodified soybean.

Paragraph (d) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register providing 60 days for public comment on petitions for a determination of nonregulated status. In accordance with § 340.6(d), we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding the petition and draft PPRA from interested or affected persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. The petition and draft PPRA are available for public review and comment, and copies are available as indicated under ADDRESSES and from the individual listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. We are particularly interested in receiving comments regarding biological or ecological issues, and we encourage the submission of scientific data, studies, or research to support your comments.

After the comment period closes, APHIS will review and evaluate any information received during the comment period and any other relevant information. Based upon available information, APHIS will respond to the petitioner either approving or denying the petition. APHIS will post its regulatory determination on its website and publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register .

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ), the regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

Section 340.6(a) of the regulations provides that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.

APHIS has received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 25-204-01p) from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. seeking a determination of nonregulated status for DAS-01131-3 maize (corn), designated as event DAS1131, which has been developed using genetic engineering to produce the Cry1Da2 protein for protection against certain susceptible lepidopteran pests and the DGT-28 EPSPS protein for tolerance to glyphosate herbicide. The petition states that the information provided indicates that DAS1131 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and therefore should not be regulated under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

As part of our decision-making process regarding the organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepared a draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) to assess the plant pest risk of the organism. APHIS' draft PPRA compared the pest risk posed by DAS1131 with that of the nonmodified variety from which it was derived. The draft PPRA concluded that DAS1131 is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to the nonmodified corn.

Paragraph (d) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register providing 60 days for public comment on petitions for a determination of nonregulated status. In accordance with § 340.6(d), we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding the petition and draft PPRA from interested or affected persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. The petition and draft PPRA are available for public review and comment, and copies are available as indicated under ADDRESSES and from the individual listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. We are particularly interested in receiving comments regarding biological or ecological issues, and we encourage the submission of scientific data, studies, or research to support your comments.

After the comment period closes, APHIS will review and evaluate any information received during the comment period and any other relevant information. Based upon available information, APHIS will respond to the petitioner either approving or denying the petition. APHIS will post its regulatory determination on its website and publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register .

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ), the regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

Section 340.6(a) of the regulations provides that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.

APHIS has received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 25-197-01p) from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. seeking a determination of nonregulated status for DP-910521-2 maize (corn), designated as event DP910521, which has been developed using genetic engineering to express the Cry1B.34 protein for control of certain susceptible lepidopteran pests, the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) protein for tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium herbicides, and the phosphomannose isomerase (PMI) protein used as a selectable marker. The petition states that the information provided indicates that DP910521 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and therefore should not be regulated under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

As part of our decision-making process regarding the organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepared a draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) to assess the plant pest risk of the organism. APHIS' draft PPRA compared the pest risk posed by DP910521 with that of the nonmodified variety from which it was derived. The draft PPRA concluded that DP910521 is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to the nonmodified corn.

Paragraph (d) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register providing 60 days for public comment on petitions for a determination of nonregulated status. In accordance with § 340.6(d), we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding the petition and draft PPRA from interested or affected persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. The petition and draft PPRA are available for public review and comment, and copies are available as indicated under ADDRESSES and from the individual listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. We are particularly interested in receiving comments regarding biological or ecological issues, and we encourage the submission of scientific data, studies, or research to support your comments.

After the comment period closes, APHIS will review and evaluate any information received during the comment period and any other relevant information. Based upon available information, APHIS will respond to the petitioner either approving or denying the petition. APHIS will post its regulatory determination on its website and publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register .

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ), the regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

Section 340.6(a) of the regulations provides that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.

APHIS has received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 25-209-01p) from Syngenta Seeds, LLC. seeking a determination of nonregulated status for MZIR260 maize ( Zea mays L.), which has been developed using genetic engineering to provide control of fall armyworm ( Spodoptera frugiperda ) and express the phosphomannose isomerase protein used as a selectable marker. The petition states that the information provided indicates that MZIR260 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and therefore should not be regulated under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

As part of our decision-making process regarding the organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepared a draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) to assess the plant pest risk of the organism. APHIS' draft PPRA compared the pest risk posed by MZIR260 with that of the nonmodified variety from which it was derived. The draft PPRA concluded that MZIR260 is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to the nonmodified corn.

Paragraph (d) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register providing 60 days for public comment on petitions for a determination of nonregulated status. In accordance with § 340.6(d), we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding the petition and draft PPRA from interested or affected persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. The petition and draft PPRA are available for public review and comment, and copies are available as indicated under ADDRESSES and from the individual listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. We are particularly interested in receiving comments regarding biological or ecological issues, and we encourage the submission of scientific data, studies, or research to support your comments.

After the comment period closes, APHIS will review and evaluate any information received during the comment period and any other relevant information. Based upon available information, APHIS will respond to the petitioner either approving or denying the petition. APHIS will post its regulatory determination on its website and publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1604) and 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) require that the Forest Service develop a land management plan, often called a forest plan, for every national forest. Land management plans provide strategic direction for management of forest resources and are to be revised every 15 years thereafter to ensure plans remain current (36 CFR 219.7(a)). The Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan was adopted in 1979, revised in 1997, and amended in 2008 and 2016. The purpose and need for revising the current land management plan are: (1) update the land management plan that was last revised nearly 30 years ago; (2) provide strategic direction that reflects changes in economic, social, and ecological conditions, new agency policies and priorities, and new information based on monitoring and scientific research; and (3) to address the preliminary identified need to change to the current land management plan. The Notice of Intent to Prepare an Assessment, pursuant to the 2012 Planning Rule, was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2024 (89 FR 32393). A draft assessment was posted for comment on January 10, 2025, and based on public comments received, the assessment was revised and posted on October 16, 2025: https://www.fs.usda.gov/r10/tongass/planning/tongass-national-forest-plan-revision-assessment.

The Tongass National Forest is the largest national forest in the country at 16.7 million acres and includes approximately 80% of the Southeast Alaska panhandle. Southeast Alaska is a remote archipelago with approximately 32 rural, semi-rural, and urban communities ranging in population from 18 to 31,000 residents. Nineteen federally recognized tribal governments are located within and utilize lands and waters of the Tongass as their traditional homelands. The landscape is complex, dominated by a largely intact temperate rainforest, encompassing waterways and over 1,000 islands, with most communities surrounded by the Tongass National Forest. Boat and air travel is key to transportation and economic prosperity. Cruise ships are the primary method of travel for the majority of the millions of tourists who visit the region annually.

The Forest Service's management of the Tongass National Forest strongly influences the rural economy, and culture of Southeast Alaska. Recreation, tourism, fisheries, and timber harvest are local and regional economic sectors that are heavily influenced by Tongass National Forest management. These commercial activities, combined with subsistence resources, are the core of Southeast Alaska's local and regional economy and depend on the high productivity and careful stewardship of Tongass National Forest ecosystems. Tourism and recreation depend heavily on scenic value and healthy fish and wildlife populations. The Tongass National Forest also contains large old growth trees, which are highly valued for specialty wood products, and younger timber stands that together can support a sustainable timber sector that contributes to rural economies and culture. The high productivity of forest ecosystems also supports rural and indigenous communities with an abundance of natural resources.

In working toward a revised forest plan for the Tongass National Forest, the revision team will ensure consistency with applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders. Unique to the Tongass is the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), which set requirements for riparian buffers from timber harvest, amended the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) to protect certain lands in the Tongass National Forest in perpetuity, and established a need to understand the demand for Tongass National Forest timber. Provisions of the TTRA and ANILCA will be addressed during the revision process. For example, a new long-term timber demand analysis is underway at the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station to inform the revised plan. The revision team will ensure consistency with executive orders including the 2025 Executive Order (E.O.) 14153, “Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential,” and E.O. 14225, “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production,” while considering resource potential and opportunities for rural economic development. E.O.s state the policy of the United States to maximize the development and production of natural resources in Alaska and to increase timber production to protect national and economic security.

The proposed action is to revise the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan to address the identified need to change. Public comment is requested on the preliminary need to change as described below. A revised plan will be developed, consistent with the 2012 Planning Rule, that includes desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, suitability of lands for specific multiple uses, lands that could be recommended to Congress for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System, and the identification of rivers eligible for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system.

The revised plan will not authorize any projects or actions but will guide future decision-making on the Tongass National Forest. It will inform the purpose and need for future actions, guide the design of projects, and include a plan monitoring program to guide the development of biennial land management plan monitoring reports.

The Forest Service will analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action. A “no action” alternative that considers retention of the current land management plan will be analyzed along with alternatives that are expected to vary in how management emphasizes access and availability of resources for different uses. Alternatives to the proposed action will represent different approaches to addressing the substantive issues raised during opportunities to comment.

The 2012 Planning Rule requires that revision of land management plans be informed by an identified need to change that reflects feedback from the public, Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations, and other governmental agencies. The agency seeks feedback on the following preliminary need to change. The need to change will continue to be refined and updated in the draft and final revised plans, through feedback and new information.

The preliminary need to change focuses on the following six interrelated goals:

(1) Update and modernize the plan, consistent with the 2012 Planning Rule, by simplifying, clarifying, reorganizing, and reducing the number of management areas for concise, easy to follow direction.

(2) Prioritize local and regional prosperity of Southeast Alaska by contributing to timber, minerals, tourism, recreation, and other important economic drivers.

(3) Incorporate strategies to address significant changes in recreation and tourism, including the increase in cruise ship visitation.

(4) Include plan content that encourages collaboration and shared stewardship with a variety of partners in pursuit of common objectives. These partners can include: local, state, and tribal governments; Alaska Native Corporations; industry stakeholders; and other non-governmental organizations.

(5) Consider needs for subsistence uses such as hunting, fishing, and gathering when developing the revised plan.

(6) Consider indigenous knowledge related to land stewardship, cultural issues, and culturally-significant sites.

Additional details are provided below for each of these goals.

Update and modernize the plan: The current Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan is constructed around 18 land use designations (LUDs), which were added at different times to achieve a variety of goals. Chapter 5 was added during 2016, through a forest plan amendment, to update direction on young-growth timber harvest, renewable energy, and transportation system corridors. As a result of numerous amendments, the current forest plan has overlapping and sometimes confusing or conflicting direction.

Simplification of the forest plan content and format, reducing overlapping direction, and improving clarity is needed to ensure that the plan is focused on integrated resource management within the fiscal capability of the unit (36 CFR 219.1(g), 219.10(a)), and to ensure that they are written clearly and without ambiguity so that a project's consistency with applicable plan components can be easily determined (36 CFR 219.15(d)).

Prioritize local and regional prosperity: There is a need to better integrate plan content with a focus on community prosperity that can be supported by Tongass National Forest management decisions. This could include updates to timber, tourism and recreation, and minerals, and other commercial uses to reflect current regional economic drivers. When considering local and regional prosperity, there is a need to consider current and possible future economic drivers to ensure that the Tongass National Forest will provide adequate access to resources for development and that plan components promote expeditious permitting for energy and natural resource developments, consistent with E.O.s 14153 and 14225.

Address changes to recreation and tourism: The current Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan contain direction for recreation and tourism, but does not reflect recent growth and projected changes, particularly the increase in cruise ship tourism. Outdoor recreation and tourism are the biggest private-sector economic drivers in the region. The revised plan needs to consider how to balance recreation and tourism with other uses, ensuring sustainability of the natural environment and protecting the character of the Tongass.

Foster shared stewardship in pursuit of common objectives: There are collaborative opportunities to meet joint management objectives across the landscape. Integration of these opportunities to work cooperatively with partners will create a land management plan with improved responsiveness to local and regional needs. There is a need to incorporate opportunities for shared stewardship, partnerships, and coordination of planning with other public planning efforts into the revised plan in order to support ecological, economic, and social sustainability.

Consider needs for subsistence uses such as hunting, fishing, and gathering: As Congress found in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, “the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural residents of Alaska, including both Natives and non-Natives, on the public lands and by Alaska Natives on Native lands is essential to Native physical, economic, traditional, and cultural existence and to non-Native physical, economic, traditional, and social existence.” In addition, rural communities of Southeast Alaska obtain a far higher proportion of their nutrition from wild sources than the national average. All types of non-commercial harvest of fish, wildlife, and plants are identified by Tribes, communities, agencies and individuals as a key ecosystem service on the Tongass National Forest that should be prioritized in the revised plan. While the current plan includes direction on subsistence uses, it does not provide direction specific to the individual communities and their activities within the Tongass National Forest.

Consider indigenous knowledge related to land stewardship, cultural issues, and culturally significant sites: Indigenous knowledge will be considered as a form of best available scientific information that will contribute to ecologically, socially, and culturally informed management practices, which is a requirement of all land management plans (36 CFR 219.4(a)(3)). There is a need to seek and integrate information on traditional uses and management of natural resources, including topics such as management and use of cultural wood, fisheries and wildlife habitat, and land and water access to locations of cultural importance. This information will be gathered through tribal government consultation, Alaska Native Corporation consultation, and other engagement with Alaska Natives. The revised plan can incorporate indigenous knowledge into plan components as well as highlight opportunities to address impacts identified by, and contribute to objectives of, federally recognized tribal governments, Alaska Native Corporations, and Alaska Native communities.

Some management direction in the current forest plan will not be changed. This is the case for actions not subject to the discretion of the Tongass National Forest Supervisor. Those include boundaries of Congressionally-designated wilderness areas and Land Use Designation II (LUD II, established by statute in 1990 and 2014 to be managed in a roadless state to maintain their wildland character), as well as Research Natural Areas and Experimental Forests. No decisions will be made regarding the management of individual roads or trails such as those that might be associated with a Travel Management plan under 36 CFR part 212. No decision regarding the availability of oil and gas leases will be made.

There are many resources for which the relevant assessment information and monitoring suggests that there may be no need for substantive change, but for which direction would be reworded and reorganized. Such change is not substantive and will not require detailed analysis. Much of the current direction meets the intent of the 2012 Planning Rule, in that it provides for sustainability, ecological integrity, diversity of plant and animal communities, ecosystem services, and multiple use, and contributes to social and economic sustainability. While the entire plan needs general updates and reorganization as described above, much existing direction needs only non-substantive updates.

The topics for which relevant information from the assessment, monitoring, and input from the public, Tribes and other agencies suggest may not need substantive change, include the following:

• Fish and wildlife direction, and species-related plan direction. While species of conservation concern will be addressed in the plan, and there may be changes to organization, many existing protective measures are expected to be retained.

• The old-growth habitat conservation strategy. While plan components may be edited and LUDs will be revised, the intent of maintaining and improving old growth habitat reserves and corridors for species that depend upon them may not need to change.

• Special uses, transportation, infrastructure, energy and minerals direction. These topics are guided by other law, regulation, or policy.

• Direction regarding specific natural resources, including air quality, soils, geology and geologic hazards, watershed and riparian management areas, and karst management. Although most protective measures have been shown to be successful, revised direction will address current conditions and the best available science and will likely result in only minor management changes.

The agency is sharing the following potential options for revised plan content to address, in part, the interrelated concerns identified in the preliminary need to change. The agency will continue to develop the revised plan and alternatives considering comments received from the public, cooperating agencies, Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations, and other governmental organizations on both the preliminary need to change and options for plan content.

• Update suitability of lands for timber production as required in a plan revision (36 CFR 219.11). Updates to suitability will include factors such as changes in land ownership due to exchanges and transfers, updated vegetation mapping, and changes from the current LUDs to new management areas. Timber production estimates and assumptions will be reviewed, and timber-related metrics such as the sustained yield limit and projected timber sale quantity will be updated accordingly and informed by a new long-term timber demand analysis underway at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, as described above and in accordance with TTRA requirements.

• Moving from the current LUD-based system to a new management area system. This would reduce the number of management areas (LUDs), while retaining most of the existing forest-wide direction for natural resource and ecosystem services management. Consideration is being given to replacing the current LUD system with a combination of forest-wide direction along with a reduced number of management areas as detailed below. Potential management areas being considered and on which we are soliciting feedback are:

General Forest —areas for which timber harvest is allowed, and where multiple uses and natural resource development could occur. These areas would be expected to include roaded areas that would be maintained and provide access for many uses and unroaded areas with development potential. These areas are not set aside for conservation purposes and would enable industry access and local access to resources. The majority of the forest's suitable timber base that contributes to the projected timber sale quantity could be located in this general forest area, guided by forest-wide direction without additional management area direction.

High Use Recreation Areas —areas for which the plan would guide recreation infrastructure development and recreation and other special use permit activities. These areas would have a desired condition of accommodating many types of recreation and tourism activities.

Low Use Recreation Areas —areas for which the plan would have limited infrastructure development, and the intent would be to provide areas without high levels of outfitter/guide or other recreation-related special use permits.

Community Use Priority Areas —areas with increased shared stewardship and prioritization of local uses, developed in conjunction with communities.

Old Growth Habitat Areas —areas that include old growth reserves and potentially other ecologically important characteristics. Within these areas, old growth timber harvest would be restricted, and other timber removal could occur for ecological or cultural benefit. Within these areas, maintenance and restoration of old growth forest structure, composition and function would be the priority.

Conservation Watersheds —areas where the focus would be on watersheds and fisheries protection. They would incorporate watersheds of conservation importance for salmon and subsistence use of salmon.

• Develop a framework that reflects changes to shifting recreation values, use patterns and technology, addresses winter recreation use and updates recreation and outfitter/guide capacity direction. This may include considering emerging uses and technologies, such as e-bikes, drones, geocaching, heliskiing, and others. It may also include a framework that is more responsive to changes in the tourism industry. For example, high and low use management areas could guide recreation infrastructure and outfitter/guide permitting.

• Integrate direction found in Chapter 5 of the current plan (2016 amendment) throughout the revised plan, rather than retain as a standalone section, improving consistency throughout the plan for management of all resources.

• Fully integrate concepts of local economic and social sustainability into management direction including integrating habitat improvement for subsistence resources and long-term management of cultural use wood into timber management.

• As required in the 2012 Planning Rule, species of conservation concern will be identified, and plan components developed to maintain or restore ecological conditions that contribute to maintaining a viable population of each of these species (36 CFR 219.9(c)).

• Develop management approaches to support the working relationships, partnerships, tribal authorities, and communities and identify other opportunities to develop and meet joint management goals. For example, management approaches or frameworks for collaborative stewardship of natural resources on the Tongass National Forest could be described.

• Management area direction should consider opportunities for shared stewardship. For example, goals for community priority management areas could be created as areas with increased shared stewardship and prioritization of local uses.

• Integrate subsistence uses throughout the plan to ensure that access to these uses is maintained or restored.

• Include consideration of indigenous perspectives of biological and cultural health and land and resource stewardship.

• Enhance flexibility to address hazardous conditions, including conditions in dynamic or sensitive ecosystems affected by increasing temperatures and changing precipitation patterns.

• Reduce duplication with other law, regulation and policy but provide citations, where necessary (as described at 36 CFR 219.2(b)(2)).

• Improve clarity of plan direction and reduce ambiguity so that project consistency with applicable plan direction can be more easily determined.

• Remove or revise current direction requiring specific analyses, types of modeling, or inventory, which may be outdated, overly complex or unclear.

• Improve clarity of plan direction on scenic integrity objectives, including updated maps and associated plan content.

We are seeking public feedback on these potential options, and welcome any proposed actions or strategies provided by the local, state, and tribal governments, Alaska Native Corporations, communities, or non-governmental organizations.

A Notice of Intent must include a preliminary list of substantive issues to be analyzed in detail, with a summary of expected impacts for each issue. The preliminary substantive issues described here are based on current information and public input. The Forest Service requests additional public input to help refine this list. The preliminary substantive issues that the Forest Service expects to analyze in detail are as follows:

• Economic sustainability —Reflecting the health of ecosystem services and industries that rely on the productivity of the Tongass National Forest, variations between the alternatives may support different economic drivers to varying degrees and different methods for contributing to economic and social sustainability, which is a requirement of all land management plans (36 CFR 219.1(c)).

• Timber availability —Varying management areas, levels of watershed protection, areas suitable for timber production, and other plan content in the proposed action and alternatives may provide variable access to old growth versus young growth timber and a varied projected timber sale quantity.

• Ecological sustainability —The proposed action and alternatives may provide different methods for maintenance of ecological sustainability, which is a requirement of all land management plans (36 CFR 219.1(c)). These methods may have different impacts to resource use and availability, risk of natural hazards such as flooding and landslides, and climate resilience. Analysis will provide the decision maker with information to determine alternative selection.

• Fisheries—including aquatic habitat and watershed conditions —Management areas and plan content in the proposed action and alternatives may have varying emphasis on protection of streams, riparian areas, and watersheds to promote healthy fisheries and access to fishery resources, including salmon.

• Access to subsistence resources used for hunting, fishing and gathering —The proposed action and alternatives may provide different methods for protection of access to subsistence resources and for balancing conflicting uses. While the revised plan will not include restrictions or allowances for subsistence uses, it can include direction for other uses with potential effects to access to subsistence sites, or direction for hunting and fishing outfitter/guides.

• Effects to recreation and tourism opportunities —Variations between the proposed action and alternatives may guide different levels and types of recreation and tourism and may lead to opportunities or restrictions varying by management area. Considerations will include the need to balance ecological, social, and economic sustainability of different types of recreation and tourism.

• Designated area extent —Alternatives may vary based on the acreage of designated areas, and the plan components associated with those areas. For example, recommended wilderness areas or special interest areas may vary by alternative.

Expected Impacts: The revised plan is expected to maintain or improve ecological, economic, social, and cultural sustainability.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, specifically a 30-day feedback period, which will, in conjunction with public engagement opportunities described in “Dates” above, guide the development of the draft plan and EIS. The scoping process is conducted in accordance with the USDA NEPA regulations (7 CFR 1b.7(c)).

In this feedback period, in addition to comments on the preliminary need to change and options for plan content, the Forest Service is requesting input to support development of potential alternatives and evaluation of impacts, and identification of any relevant information, studies, or analyses concerning impacts that may affect the quality of the environment.

It is important that reviewers provide comments at such times and in such a manner that they are useful to the Forest Service's preparation of the preliminary draft revised plan and EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. The scoping and comment periods are established in a manner as not to preclude meeting the statutory deadline for completing an EIS.

The decision to approve a revised plan for the Tongass National Forest will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR part 219 Subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). According to 36 CFR 219.53(a), those who may file an objection are individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to land management plan revision during the opportunities provided for public comment, including this 30-day feedback period. The burden is on the objector to demonstrate compliance with requirements for objections (36 CFR 219.53). Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, they do not establish eligibility to file an objection.

The Forest Service released a notice of intent on August 29, 2025, to prepare an environmental impact statement for proposed rulemaking to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule) ( https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16581/special-areas-roadless-area-conservation-national-forest-system-lands ). The proposed rulemaking would remove prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting within inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), including 9.3 million acres of land currently identified as IRAs in the Tongass National Forest. In addition, E.O. 14153, “Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential,” directs the Secretary to reinstate the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule, which exempted the Tongass from the 2001 Roadless Rule (until it was later rescinded). The proposed nation-wide recission of the 2001 Roadless Rule would have the same result as reinstating the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule for the Tongass National Forest and meet the intent of the E.O.

The EIS for the revised plan will analyze one or more alternatives that do not include IRA designations so final decision on the revised plan can align with the outcome of the rulemaking process.

The Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposed action. Cooperating agencies include the State of Alaska, City and Borough of Wrangell, City of Ketchikan, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Other governmental agencies, including tribal governments, may request to participate as a cooperating agency by contacting Marion Glaser at marion.glaser@usda.gov or 907-519-8035.

The Responsible Official is Monique Nelson, Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest Supervisor's Office, 648 Mission St., Ste. 110, Ketchikan, AK 99901, 907-225-3101.

The Tongass National Forest is revising its land management plan and preparing an EIS to evaluate the effects of the revision. The EIS is meant to inform the forest supervisor's decision regarding which alternative best maintains and restores National Forest System terrestrial and aquatic resources while providing ecosystem services and multiple uses, as required by the National Forest Management Act and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. The revised plan will describe the strategic intent of managing the forest for the next 10 to 15 years and will address the identified need to change to the current land management plan.

The revised plan will not replace applicable laws and regulations. The authorization of project-level activities will be based on the guidance and direction contained in the revised plan but will only occur through subsequent project-specific analysis and decision-making, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act. No decisions will be made regarding the management of individual roads or trails such as those that might be associated with a Travel Management Plan under 36 CFR part 212. No decision regarding the availability of oil and gas leases will be made.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS will submit to OMB for regular approval.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to 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.

Comments may be sent by the Federal eRulemaking Portal, www.regulations.gov. In the “Search” box, type in the Docket No. RUS-26-TELECOM-0001. and click the “Search” button. From the search results: click on or locate the document title and select the “Comment” button. To submit a comment: Insert comments under the “Comment” title. Information on using regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “FAQ” link.

Title: Broadband Technical Assistance Program.

OMB Control Number: 0572-0160.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: The Rural Utilities Service administers the Broadband Technical Assistance Program (BTA Program) as authorized pursuant to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58). The purpose of the program is to provide financial assistance to technical assistance providers and rural communities to promote the expansion of broadband service into unserved rural areas. Program funds must be used to support broadband technical assistance activities which include, but are not limited to, project planning and community engagement, operations support, financial sustainability, environmental compliance, construction and engineering, accessing federal resources, and data collection and reporting.

The reporting burden covered by this collection of information consists of forms, documents and written burden to support a request for funding for BTA Program assistance. This information collection will be used to obtain information necessary to evaluate applications to determine the eligibility of the applicant and the project for the program and to qualitatively assess the project's technical and financial merit to determine which projects should be funded.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.638 hours per response.

Respondents: Respondents for this data my include Tribes and Tribal Entities, state or local governments, a territory or possession of the United States, an institution of higher learning, non-profit entities with 501(c)(3) IRS status, cooperatives or mutual organizations, corporations and limited liability companies or limited liability partnerships.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 95.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 9.31.

Estimated Number of Responses: 885.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 2,335 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Adyam Negasi, Rural Development Innovation Center, Regulations Management Division, at (202) 221-9298. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

  Incident identifier Postponement identifier Review board decision 2024-004-011 2026-NARA-04-0001 Approve. 2024-004-011 2026-NARA-04-0002 Withdrawn by agency. 2024-004-011 2026-NARA-04-0003 Approve. 2024-004-011 2026-NARA-04-0004 Withdrawn by agency.

Authority: Pub. L. 115-426, 132 Stat. 5489 (44 U.S.C. 2107).

In accordance with the Government in Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), the Commission on Civil Rights is holding a meeting to discuss the Commission's business for the month of February. This business meeting is open to the public. Computer assisted real-time transcription (CART) will be provided. The web link to access CART (in English) on Friday, February 20, 2026, is https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=USCCR. Please note that CART is text-only translation that occurs in real time during the meeting and is not an exact transcript.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public comment session on Friday, February 20, 2026, to investigate the increase in antisemitism on America's college and university campuses. The investigation will examine how institutions of higher education and the federal government responded to allegations of antisemitism on U.S. college and university campuses in violation of federal civil rights protections.

At this public comment session, the Commission will hear from impacted students, educators, university officials, and community members about their experiences with antisemitism on college campuses.

The web link to access CART (in English) on Friday, February 20, 2026, is https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=USCCR. Please note that CART is text-only translation that occurs in real time during the meeting and is not an exact transcript.

To request additional accommodations, persons with disabilities should email access@usccr.gov by Monday, February 16, 2026, indicating “accommodations” in the subject line.

In addition to the testimony collected on Friday, February 20, 2026, via public comment session, the Commission welcomes the submission of material for consideration as we prepare our report. Please submit such information to asbriefing@usccr.gov no later than March 20, 2026, or by mail to OCRE/Public Comments, ATTN: AS Briefing, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a briefing on Thursday, February 19, 2026, to investigate the increase in antisemitism on America's college and university campuses. The investigation will examine how institutions of higher education and the federal government responded to allegations of antisemitism on U.S. college and university campuses in violation of federal civil rights protections.

At this public briefing, the Commission will hear from subject matter experts such as current and former federal employees, impacted students and university officials, advocacy organizations, and legal and policy experts.

The web link to access CART (in English) on Thursday, February 19, 2026, is https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=USCCR. Please note that CART is text-only translation that occurs in real time during the meeting and is not an exact transcript.

To request additional accommodations, persons with disabilities should email access@usccr.gov by Monday, February 16, 2026, indicating “accommodations” in the subject line.

In addition to the testimony collected on Thursday, February 19, 2026, via public briefing, the Commission welcomes the submission of material for consideration as we prepare our report. Please submit such information to asbriefing@usccr.gov no later than March 20, 2026, or by mail to OCRE/Public Comments, ATTN: AS Briefing, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4011-21) (the Act) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325. OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the Federal Register . Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous.

NFE amended its Certificate as follows:

1. Change the Export Product coverage of the following Member of the Certificate:

List of Members, as amended

The effective date of the amended certificate is July 25th, 2025, the date on which NFE's application to amend was deemed submitted.

Background

On October 9, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on flanges from India. 1 On November 14, 2024, and December 18, 2024, based on timely requests for review, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the Order covering 13 companies, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2 On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by 90 days. 3 On September 29, 2025, Commerce extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this administrative review by 16 days. 4 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceeding by 47 days, 5 and, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 6 On December 2, 2025, Commerce extended the deadline for the preliminary results by 21 days. 7 Additionally, on December 23, 2025, Commerce extended the deadline for the preliminary results by 14 days. 8 Accordingly, the deadline for the preliminary results is now January 28, 2026.

For details regarding the events that occurred subsequent to the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 9 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix I to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The merchandise covered by the Order is stainless steel flanges from India. For a full description of the scope, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Viraj Profiles Private Limited (Viraj) reported that it changed its name from “Viraj Profiles Limited” (Viraj Profiles) to “Viraj Profiles Private Limited.”  10 Based on our analysis of the information on the record regarding changes with respect to Viraj Profiles' corporate structure, manufacturing facilities, customers, and suppliers, we preliminarily determine that Viraj is the successor-in-interest to Viraj Profiles, and, as a result, should be treated in the same manner as Viraj Profiles. For further discussion, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum at “Preliminary Successor-In-Interest Determination.”

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review in the Federal Register . In February 2025, Echjay Forgings Private Limited (Echjay) and Goodluck India Limited (Goodluck) timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review. 11 Because no other party requested a review of these companies, Commerce is rescinding this review with respect to Echjay and Goodluck, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. We calculated NV in accordance with section 773 of the Act. Furthermore, pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences (AFA) to determine the margin assigned to BFN Forgings Private Limited; Flanschen werk Bebitz GmbH; Viraj Alloys, Ltd.; Viraj Forgings, Ltd.; Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.; and Viraj (collectively, BFN/Viraj). 12 For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a less-than-fair value (LTFV) investigation for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely on the basis of facts available. In this administrative review, Commerce preliminarily assigned a margin based entirely on AFA to BFN/Viraj. Therefore, the only rate that is not zero, de minimis or based entirely on AFA is the rate calculated for Chandan Steel Limited (Chandan). Therefore, we are preliminarily assigning Chandan's rate of 0.60 percent to the companies not selected for individual examination in this review, in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. The companies not selected for individual examination are listed in Appendix II.

We preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024:

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. 14 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce is no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 15 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 16 All briefs must be filed electronically via ACCESS. 17 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 18 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 19

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 20

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where Chandan reported the entered value for its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. Where either Chandan's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c), or an importer-specific rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Chandan for which the company did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( i.e., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation ( i.e., 7.00 percent), 21 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 22

For the companies listed in Appendix II which were not selected for individual review, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries based on the review-specific rate, calculated as noted in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section, above. For BFN/Viraj, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries based on the dumping margin listed in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section, above.

For the companies for which we are rescinding the review, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue these rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP regarding Chandan, BFN/Viraj, and the companies listed in Appendix II no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding in which they were examined; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 7.00 percent, 23 the all-others rate established in the amended final determination of the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).

On July 25, 2016, Commerce published the CVD order on CORE from Korea. 1 On August 20, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results in this changed circumstances review (CCR), finding that Dongkuk CM is not the SII to Old Dongkuk Steel. 2 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 3 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 4 On January 9, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline for the final results of the CCR by 14 days. 5 On February 4, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline for the final results of the CCR by an additional seven days. 6 The final results of the CCR are currently due by February 12, 2026. 7

For a complete discussion of the events that followed the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 8 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The product covered by this Order is CORE from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in interested parties' case briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised by parties, and to which Commerce responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is provided in the appendix to this notice.

For the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we continue to find that Dongkuk CM is not the SII to Old Dongkuk Steel in the context of the CVD order on CORE from Korea. We continue to find that Old Dongkuk Steel's exclusion from the Order currently in effect does not apply to Dongkuk CM, and we have not made changes to the Preliminary Results. Accordingly, for entries of CORE from Korea produced and/or exported by Dongkuk CM that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary Results ( i.e., August 20, 2025), importers must identify the merchandise as subject to CVDs ( e.g., type 03) with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Further, parties may request annual administrative reviews of Dongkuk CM going forward, pursuant to section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

As also discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we are notifying parties that any company that is excluded from a CVD order and restructures, such as Old Dongkuk Steel, must request a CCR for Commerce to determine whether the restructured company is essentially the same entity as the predecessor for cash deposit purposes. 9 Accordingly, for any company excluded from a CVD order, the burden is on the company to request a CCR pursuant to section 751 of the Act in these circumstances. Additionally, we are providing notice that importers must identify merchandise produced and/or exported by the restructured company as subject to CVDs ( e.g., type 03) as of the date on which the changed circumstances subject to the request occurred. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these final results of a CCR and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216(e), 351.221(b), and 351.221(c)(3).

On August 8, 2025, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review in the Federal Register and invited comments from interested parties. 1 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 2 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 3 Accordingly, the deadline for these final results is now February 12, 2026.

For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The product covered by the scope of the Order is aluminum foil from China. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised by the interested parties in their case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in Appendix I to this notice.

Based on our analysis of comments from interested parties and the evidence on the record, we made certain changes from the Preliminary Results to the countervailable subsidy calculations for Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co., Ltd. (Zhongji). As a result, we have also revised the rate applicable to companies not selected for individual review. In addition, we have made certain changes to the selection methodology of the adverse facts available (AFA) rates used in the Preliminary Results. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 6 For a complete description of the methodology underlying all of Commerce's conclusions, including our reliance, in part, on facts otherwise available, including adverse facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the establishment of rates to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination where Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce normally determines the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides the basis for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act instructs Commerce, as a general rule, to calculate an all-others rate equal to the weighted average of the countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and/or producers individually examined, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.

There are 14 companies for which a review was requested and not rescinded, and which were not selected as mandatory respondents or found to be cross-owned with a mandatory respondent. In this review, the only rate that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for Zhongji. Consequently, the rate calculated for Zhongji is also assigned as the rate for the companies under review that were not selected for individual examination.

As explained in the Preliminary Results, Shanghai Shenyan Packaging Materials Co., Ltd. (Shenyan) was selected as a mandatory respondent in this review; however, Shenyan elected not to participate in this review and did not respond to Commerce's countervailing duty (CVD) questionnaire. We continue to find that by not responding to Commerce's request for information, Shenyan withheld requested information and significantly impeded this proceeding. Thus, in reaching our final results, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, we continue to base the CVD subsidy rates for this non-responsive company on facts otherwise available.

Further, we continue to determine that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. By failing to submit a response to Commerce's CVD questionnaire, Shenyan failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information in this review. Accordingly, we continue to find that an adverse inference is warranted to ensure that the non-responsive company will not obtain a more favorable result than if it had fully complied with Commerce's request for information. Commerce did not make any changes to its determination to rely on facts otherwise available with adverse inferences from the Preliminary Results for Shenyan. However, Commerce has made certain revisions to the total AFA rate applicable to Shenyan since the Preliminary Results. For a discussion of these changes, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

We determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these final results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review, for the above-listed companies at the applicable ad valorem assessment rates. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of these final results of review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for each of the respective companies listed above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms subject to the Order, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, effective upon publication of these final results, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

Section 351.225 of Commerce's regulations governs Commerce's scope rulings. Commerce may clarify the scope of an order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(q). On December 22, 2025, Commerce issued the Proposed Scope Clarification  1 to provide notice that it intends to clarify the scope of the Order by adding certain certification requirements for fresh tomatoes imported for processing and expressly excluded from the scope of the Order. 2 Interested parties were invited to comment on the intended clarification.

Commerce received comments from the Florida Tomato Exchange (FTE) and a rebuttal submission from the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas (FPAA). No other parties commented on the Proposed Scope Clarification.

• Commerce should refine its proposed language because it is susceptible to more than one interpretation, and Commerce should include an additional certification requirement because the proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) form is inadequate to fulfill the purpose of the proposed change.

• Consistent with the requirements of the 2019 suspension agreement, Commerce should require an additional certification specific to this proceeding that remedies the deficiencies of USDA Form SC-6.

• FPAA concurs with the petitioner's proposed changes to Commerce's proposed clarifying language regarding tomatoes for processing.

• To the extent that Commerce is modifying the scope definition to clarify the need for a Form SC-6 to be submitted, Commerce should also coordinate and work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to ensure that CBP's Automated Customs Environment (ACE) system is also modified so that importers will have a way to comply with the additional scope requirements for imports of tomatoes for processing to also declare that they have an accompanying Form SC-6.

Commerce agrees with the petitioner and FPAA that there is ambiguity in the Proposed Scope Clarification and is adopting the petitioner's suggested changes. The Proposed Scope Clarification is intended to insert the certification requirements for entries of fresh tomatoes imported into the United States for processing and expressly excluded from the scope of the Order. This clarification is not intended to change the scope of the fresh tomatoes either covered by the Order or excluded from the Order but is merely intended to clarify and inform the public that entries of fresh tomatoes imported into the United States for processing must be accompanied by SC-6  3 and the “Processing Tomatoes Certification Form.”  4

Furthermore, with respect to the FPAA's request that Commerce work with CBP to modify the ACE system, Commerce will require that importers file the SC-6 and the Processing Tomatoes Certification Form to be uploaded into the ACE document imaging system at the time of filing an entry summary, as explained in the “Certification Requirements” section below.

Importers are required to complete and maintain the applicable certifications and retain all supporting documentation. As of the date of publication of this Federal Register notice, the importer certifications must be completed, signed, and dated by the time the entry summary is filed for the relevant entry.

The importer, or the importer's agent, must submit the importer's certifications at the time of entry summary by uploading these documents into the document imaging system (DIS) in ACE. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, the importer should obtain the entry summary number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as brokers, however, are not permitted to certify on behalf of the importer. Consistent with CBP's procedures, importers shall identify certified entries by using importers' additional declaration (record 54) AD/CVD Certification Designation (type code 06) when filing entry summary. 5 These certifications and declarations must be maintained by the importer and presented to CBP upon request and both the importer or importer's agent, as applicable, and the processor must maintain copies of these forms for five years. The claims made in the certifications and declarations and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP.

The merchandise subject to the Order is fresh tomatoes from Mexico. For a complete description of the revised scope of the Order, see the appendix to this notice.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(q).

On January 2, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of imports of fresh mushrooms from Canada. 1 Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than March 9, 2026. 2

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds completing reasons to deny the request.

On February 10, 2026, the Fresh Mushrooms Fair Trade Coalition and its individual members ( i.e., the petitioners) timely requested that Commerce postpone the preliminary CVD determination. 3 The petitioners stated a postponement is warranted to provide Commerce with additional time to review and to analyze the questionnaire responses submitted by the Government of Canada and by the respondents, and to issue supplemental questionnaires. 4

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners have timely stated the reasons for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination, and Commerce finds no compelling reason to deny this request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated, i.e., May 12, 2026.

Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determination of this CVD investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

On January 27, 2021, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Final Results of the 2018-2019 AD administrative review of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. 1 Commerce found that Saha Thai did not provide requested information with respect to a substantial portion of its U.S. sales and failed to act to the best of its ability. 2 As a result, Commerce reached its final determination based on facts otherwise available, including the application of adverse inferences. 3

Saha Thai appealed Commerce's Final Results. On December 2, 2022, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce, holding that Commerce had failed to provide notice and an opportunity to remedy as required by law and that it had failed to explain adequately in the record the reason that it chose to draw and adverse inference. 4 The CIT found that Commerce's decision was not supported by substantial evidence or in accordance with the law and remanded the issue to Commerce for further proceedings. 5

In its final remand redetermination, issued in July 2025, Commerce reopened the record of the administrative review, solicited a full revised questionnaire response from Saha Thai, and recalculated Saha Thai's weighted-average dumping margin by including all sales of dual-stenciled pipe. 6 Commerce also analyzed a particular market situation (PMS) in its final remand redetermination, finding that the nature of Saha Thai's costs of producing subject merchandise was outside the ordinary course and trade and indicated an extraordinary circumstance that warrants a PMS adjustment. 7 The CIT sustained Commerce's final remand redetermination. 8

In its decision in Timken, 9 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 10 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's February 4, 2026, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

On June 11, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of the 2023-2024 administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on SS Bar from India. 1 On August 5, 2025, we issued the Post-Preliminary Results of this administrative review. 2 On August 6, 2025, we invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results and on the Post-Preliminary Results, in which Commerce revised the differential pricing methodology. 3 On September 18, 2025, we extended the deadline for issuing the final results of administrative review by 57 days to December 5, 2025. 4 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 5 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 6 Accordingly, the deadline for these final results is now February 11, 2026.

For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 7 Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products covered by the Order are SS Bar from India. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 9

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are listed in the appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

Commerce evaluated the comments in the case and rebuttal briefs and made no changes from the Preliminary Results or Post-Preliminary Results. For a more detailed discussion of the issues raised by parties, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

As explained in the Preliminary Results, Commerce received a request for review of Bhansali Bright Bars (Bhansali) and Chandan Steels Limited (Chandan). 10 On April 22, 2024, Commerce placed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry data for U.S. imports of subject merchandise during the POR on the record for respondent selection purposes, which reflected no entries from Bhansali and Chandan. 11

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an AD order where it determines that there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the AD assessment rate for the review period. 12 Therefore, for an administrative review to be conducted, there must be a suspended entry that Commerce can instruct CBP to liquidate at the calculated AD assessment rate for the review period. 13

We provided interested parties with an opportunity to submit comments on our intent to rescind, in part, the administrative review concerning Bhansali and Chandan. 14 We did not receive any comments from interested parties concerning our intent to rescind, in part, the administrative review concerning Bhansali and Chandan. Accordingly, in the absence of reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR, we are rescinding this administrative review for Bhansali and Chandan, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely on the basis of facts available. Where the rates for individually investigated companies are all zero or de minimis, or determined entirely using facts otherwise available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act instructs Commerce to rely on “any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined for exporters and producers individually investigated.”

In this review, for the final results, Commerce determined to apply adverse facts available (AFA) to Atlas Stainless Corporation Private Limited (Atlas), pursuant to section 776 of the Act, and assigned it a 30.92 percent dumping margin, and calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Aamor Inox Limited (Aamor) of 0.00 percent. Thus, for the final results, we applied to the non-examined companies, Ambica Steels Limited, Laxcon Steels Limited and its affiliates, Ocean Steels Private Limited, Metlax International Private Limited, Parvati Private Limited, Mega Steels Private Limited, and Meltroll Engineering Pvt. Ltd., the rate of 15.46 percent, which is the simple average of the rate we calculated for Aamor and the dumping margin we have assigned to Atlas, determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. 15

We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2023, through January 31, 2024:

Normally, Commerce will disclose the calculations performed in connection with the final results to parties in the proceeding within five days of the date of public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the final results in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because we have made no changes to the Post-Preliminary Results, regarding our margin calculation for Aamor, there are no new calculations to disclose.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales to that importer, and we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review in the Federal Register , as provided for by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for companies subject to this review will be the rates established in these final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 12.45 percent, 18 the all-others rate established in the investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On September 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of high purity dissolving pulp from Brazil and Norway. 1 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 2 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 3 Currently, the preliminary determinations are due no later than March 30, 2026.

Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.

On January 20, 2026, the petitioners submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determinations in these LTFV investigations. 4 The petitioners stated that they request postponement “given the size and complexity of the investigations, the extensions of time {Commerce} has already granted to respondents, and the fact that in the Norway investigation {Commerce} has yet to select a comparison country market.”  5 Additionally, the petitioners stated that an extension of time will allow the petitioners “adequate time to comment on responses and will allow {Commerce} adequate time to issue supplemental questionnaires and to conduct thorough analyses of all issues identified.”  6

For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days. 7 As a result, Commerce will issue its preliminary determinations no later than May 18, 2026. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless postponed at a later date.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

The primary purpose of this online meeting is a work session of the CPSMT to discuss matters related to the management cycle of the central subpopulation of northern anchovy and the Pacific Council's future meeting agenda and workload planning. No management actions will be decided by the CPSMT. CPSMT recommendations will be considered by the Pacific Council at the March 2026 Pacific Council meeting. The meeting agenda will be available on the Pacific Council's website in advance of the meeting.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Hayden York ( Hayden.York@pcouncil.org; (503) 820-2424) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

Meeting information, including agendas, overviews, and briefing book materials will be posted on the Council's website at: https://safmc.net/council-meetings/. Webinar registration links for the meeting will also be available from the Council's website.

Public comment: Public comment on agenda items may be submitted through the Council's online comment form available from the Council's website at: https://safmc.net/events/march-2026-council-meeting/. Written comments will be accepted from February 13, 2026, until March 6, 2026. These comments are accessible to the public, part of the Administrative Record of the meeting, and immediately available for Council consideration. A formal public comment session will also be held during the Council meeting.

The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:

The Snapper Grouper Commercial Sub-Committee will continue reviewing management measures proposed in Amendment 60 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan to address permits and trip efficiency in the commercial fishery. The Sub-Committee will also receive feedback from the Law Enforcement Advisory Panel regarding the proposed measures.

The Council will receive a litigation brief and reports from state agencies, Council liaisons, the Law Enforcement Advisory Panel, Resilient Fisheries projects, the Habitat and Ecosystem Advisory Panel, Lines of Communications meetings, and the Shrimp Workgroup. The Council will also receive briefings from the National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC). The Council will receive a presentation on NOAA fisheries progress towards a value/risk matrix for managed stocks and review a draft comment letter on the proposed rule for commercial Atlantic Blacknose Shark and recreational Atlantic shark fisheries.

The Committee will receive updates from the National Marine Fisheries Service on amendments undergoing rulemaking, any new Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) applications, and the EFPs that were submitted in November 2025 by the South Atlantic states to pilot state management of the recreational Red Snapper fishery in the South Atlantic.

The Committee will review the report from the Commercial Sub-Committee meeting held earlier in the week. The Committee will discuss an amendment to address sunsetting of Spawning Special Management Zones and consider feedback from the Law Enforcement Advisory Panel on enforcement and compliance with the closed areas. The Committee will review information on potential changes to regulations for South Atlantic headboats and consider feedback on this topic from the Law Enforcement Advisory Panel. The Committee will also review sector allocations for Vermilion Snapper and Red Grouper.

The Committee will continue discussion of Amendment 61 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan to evaluate the composition of the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Unit and consider feedback from the Law Enforcement Advisory Panel. The Committee will receive an update on the status of needed information to continue developing Amendment 56 addressing Black Sea Bass and review progress on Amendment 44 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan addressing catch levels for Yellowtail Snapper and Mutton Snapper. The Committee is scheduled to finalize an Innovation Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery and review topics for the spring meeting of the Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel.

Wednesday, March 4, 2026, 4 p.m. —Public comment will be accepted from individuals attending the meeting in person and via webinar on all items on the Council meeting agenda. The Council Chair will determine the amount of time provided to each commenter based on the number of individuals wishing to comment.

The Committee will receive a report from the SEDAR Steering Committee and discuss SEDAR process updates. The Committee will review statements of work and terms of reference for upcoming assessments and discuss the Committee's scope and name change.

The Council will receive an update on progress on the Dolphin Management Strategy Evaluation from the SEFSC and review the Council's response to Executive Order 14276 in 2025. The Council will review its workplan, topics for the spring meeting of the Outreach and Communication Advisory Panel, and upcoming meetings for the year. The Council will review reports from the committees that met during the week and discuss any other business as needed.

Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES ).

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see ADDRESSES ) 5 days prior to the meeting.

The requested permits have been issued under the MMPA of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), as applicable. Notices were published in the Federal Register on the dates listed below that requests had been submitted. To locate the Federal Register notice that announced our receipt of the application and a complete description of the activities, go to https://www.federalregister.gov and search for the file number provided in table 1 below.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), a final determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permits was based on a finding that such permits: (1) were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

We received petitions on December 21, 2023, from the Friends of Animals and on February 27, 2024, from the Center for Biological Diversity to list the Atlantic (or American) horseshoe crab ( Limulus polyphemus ) as an endangered or threatened species and to designate critical habitat for this species under the ESA. Both petitions identify four of the five ESA 4(a)(1) factors as threatening the continued existence of this species: (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes; (3) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (4) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The petitions are available online (see ADDRESSES ).

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce shall make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we find that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a “positive 90-day finding”), we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned, during which we will conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial data. In such cases, within 12 months of receipt of the petition, we conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the best available information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a positive 90-day finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.

Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; jointly, “the Services”) DPS Policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).

ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by the Services (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define “substantial scientific or commercial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as “credible scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted. Conclusions drawn in the petition without the support of credible scientific or commercial information will not be considered “substantial information.” In reaching the initial (90-day) finding on the petition, we consider the information described in sections 50 CFR 424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if applicable) and may also consider information readily available at the time the determination is made (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(ii)).

Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted depends in part on the degree to which the petition includes the following types of information: (1) information on current population status and trends and estimates of current population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if available; (2) identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting upon the species; (3) whether, and to what extent, any or all of the factors alone or in combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened species ( i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is likely to become so within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the species and its habitat are; (4) information on adequacy of regulatory protections and effectiveness of conservation activities by States, as well as other parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect the species or its habitat; and (5) a complete, balanced representation of the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims in the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d).

We may also consider information readily available at the time the determination is made (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(ii)). We are not required to consider any supporting materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide electronic or hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright law, or appropriate excerpts or quotations from those materials ( e.g., publications, maps, reports, and letters from authorities). See 50 CFR 424.14(c)(6) and 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(ii).

At the 90-day finding stage, we do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation, or that is contradicted by other available information, will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review could conclude it supports the petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding.

To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we first evaluate whether the information presented in the petition indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a species eligible for listing under the ESA. If so, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either a threatened or endangered species, as defined by the ESA. This may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate whether the petition presents any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species ( e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity, or fragmentation) and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate whether the petition presents information suggesting potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.

Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act, or have acted, on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating not only whether the particular species is exposed to a factor, but also whether the species may be responding in a negative fashion. We then assess the potential significance of any such negative response.

Many petitions identify risk classifications made by nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or State statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, 1 their assessments of a species' conservation status do not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the ESA because NatureServe assessments have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes, and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide. Additionally, species classifications under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats in accordance with the ESA and our implementing regulations as discussed above.

There are four extant species of horseshoe crabs belonging to the phylum Arthropoda and the Family Limulidae (ASMFC 1998; Smith et al. 2017). The Atlantic (or American) horseshoe crab (HSC), Limulus polyphemus, is the only species of HSC that occurs along the Atlantic and Gulf of America coasts of North America. Atlantic HSCs range from Maine south to Yucatán, Mexico; however, the species has not been documented as occurring along the western and southern Gulf of America coasts from Texas to Tabasco, Mexico (ASMFC 1998, 2019; Smith et al. 2017). Information cited in the petitions suggests that the portion of the range of greatest biological significance to the Atlantic HSC is located within the center of the species' range, specifically, the Mid-Atlantic's Delaware Bay. Sources (ASMFC 2022a; Smith et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2023; Smith, J.A. et al. 2022) indicate that the Delaware Bay supports the largest population of Atlantic HSC. For example, Smith, J.A. et al. (2022) state that “the largest aggregation of spawning American horseshoe crabs in the world occurs in Delaware Bay.” The significance of the Delaware Bay HSC population is further evidenced by the importance of this region to the ESA-listed red knot ( Calidris canutus rufa ), which primarily forage on HSC eggs. Specifically, the Delaware Bay is the only area identified across the red knot's range as containing an Atlantic HSC population large enough to produce sufficient surface egg abundance needed to support the energetic requirements of migrating red knots (ASMFC 2022a; Smith et al. 2017; Smith, J.A. et al. 2022).

Over an individual's lifetime, Atlantic HSCs generally stay near or within their natal waters ( e.g., estuaries or embayments) (ASMFC 2009, 2013, 2019; Smith et al. 2009; Smith et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2017; Smith, J.A. et al. 2022). Numerous genetic, isotope, tagging, and behavioral studies have indicated that the Atlantic HSC can be divided into regional population units (ASMFC 2019; Gerhart 2007; King et al. 2015; Smith et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2023). Specifically, based on the examination by King et al. (2015) of 13 polymorphic nuclear markers of the Atlantic HSC, at least 8 regional units were identified across the species' range: Maine (northern Maine, Hog Bay), Gulf of Maine (southern Maine to New Hampshire), Mid-Atlantic (Massachusetts to North Carolina), Southeast (South Carolina to Georgia), Florida-East (Indian River, Florida-Atlantic), Florida-South (Biscayne Bay, Florida-Atlantic), Florida-Gulf of America (hereafter, “Gulf”), 2 and Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. Among these regional population units, King et al. (2015) found that the pair-wise genetic distance, which is a measure of the degree of genetic differentiation between two populations, was greatest between the regional units at the extremes of the species' range ( i.e., northern Maine (Hog Bay) and Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico). Large degrees of genetic differentiation were also observed when either regional unit at the extremes of the species' range ( i.e., northern Maine (Hog Bay) or Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico) was compared to the Gulf of Maine, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Florida-East, Florida-South, or Florida-Gulf regional units (King et al. 2015). King et al. (2015) identified barriers to gene flow (via isolation by distance or by physical oceanographic features ( e.g., currents)) as a contributing factor to the high degree of genetic differentiation detected between the populations at the extremes of the species' range and other regional population units, as well as between several isolated populations along Florida's east coast. For the remaining regional population units identified along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, although genetic variation exists within and between regional population units, King et al. (2015) identified some degree of relatedness (or recent gene flow) among regional populations, specifically those neighboring one another. Based on these findings, King et al. (2015) concluded that gene flow occurs within each regional unit, and some low levels of gene exchange occur between neighboring regional units. Results of genetic studies, including those completed by King et al. (2015), also indicate that gene flow is primarily mediated by male dispersal (or movement) among spawning sites, as evidenced by the higher degree of genetic differentiation observed among females in different regional populations than males (ASMFC 2009; Gerhart 2007; King et al. 2015; Smith et al. 2017).

The life history of the Atlantic HSC is characterized by late maturation ( i.e., age of sexual maturity), with females maturing between 10 to 12 years and males between 9 to 10 years; high fecundity; low adult but high egg and larvae natural mortality; and a longevity of approximately 17 to 20 years (ASMFC 2019; Schuster and Sekiguchi 2003; Smith et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2009). Completion of each stage of the Atlantic HSCs life history, from embryo to adult, depends upon specific environmental cues ( e.g., temperature, tidal patterns, wind, water levels) which are broadly discussed below. However, as environmental conditions are not uniform across the species' range, numerous studies have documented the species ability to adapt to existing and changing environmental conditions at a local level (Banerjee and Mitra 2017; Botton et al. 2009; Botton et al. 2021; Chabot et al. 2011; Cheng et al. 2015; Estes et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2017). Atlantic HSCs are considered ecological generalists given the species' tolerance and adaptability to a wide range of environmental conditions, including hypoxia (low oxygen levels), salinity ranging from 35 parts per thousand (ppt) to approximately about 1.7 ppt, and temperature ranging from below 0° Celsius to over 40° Celsius (Banerjee and Mitra 2017; Botton et al. 2009; Botton et al. 2021; Laughlin 1983).

Upon reaching sexual maturity, environmental cues stimulate spawning behavior in adult Atlantic HSCs (ASMFC 2019; Chabot et al. 2011; Cheng et al. 2015; Estes et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2017). Given the geographic range of the species, initiation of spawning behavior varies temporally by latitude (ASMFC 2019; Estes et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2009). In general, at the most southern portion of the Atlantic HSC range ( i.e., Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico) spawning can occur year-round, while at the most northern portion of its range, ( i.e., New Hampshire to Maine) spawning begins when water temperatures reach approximately 12° Celsius to 15° Celsius, generally between the months of April to June (ASMFC 2019; Smith et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2009). Regardless of geographic location, daily spawning activity is associated with high tides, which the species detects through changes in water depth (ASMFC 2019; Chabot et al. 2011; Cheng et al. 2015; Estes et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2017). Studies have shown that water level changes are the strongest cue for synchronization of spawning activities, with other environmental factors ( e.g., temperature, currents, salinity) playing a lesser role (Chabot et al. 2011). Numerous studies provided in Chabot et al. (2011) matched the spawning frequency of some Atlantic HSC populations with tidal periodicity, and it was noted in Chabot et al. (2011) that other populations that experience “micro tides (essentially no tidal water changes)” showed no synchronization of spawning activity.

Once spawning environmental cues are received, males and females migrate from deeper oceanic or estuarine waters to spawning beaches (ASMFC 2019; Chabot et al. 2011; Cheng et al. 2015; Smith et al. 2017). Females typically arrive at the spawning beach with an attached male, along with several males following the attached pair (ASMFC 2019; Smith et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2017). In general, adults prefer to spawn on sandy, undisturbed beaches of bays, coves, and lagoons protected from wave energy and preferably near intertidal flats that serve as a nursery habitat for Atlantic HSC larvae and juveniles (ASMFC 2019; Smith et al. 2017; Smith, J.A. et al. 2022). However, depending on location within the species' range, Atlantic HSCs may spawn in estuarine shoreline habitat, near the edges of small mangrove islands, on offshore sandbars, or on beaches in other estuarine shoreline habitats comprised of mud, fine grained, or cobble substrate (Smith et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2023). On a single tide, females will create multiple nests between the low-tide terrace (tidal flat) and the extreme high-tide water line (ASMFC 2019; Smith et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2017). Larger females produce and carry more eggs than smaller females (Smith et al. 2009; Smith et al. 2017). For example, females with a prosomal width ( i.e., the largest straight-line width of the HSC body) of 265 millimeters (mm) have been reported to carry 80,000 eggs (Smith et al. 2009), while females with a prosomal width of 201 mm have been reported to carry approximately 14,500 eggs (Smith et al. 2017). However, egg cluster size does not appear to be solely related to female size because latitudinal variation in cluster size has been documented, with cluster size appearing to be larger for those populations in the middle of the species' range ( e.g., Delaware Bay, reported eggs/cluster = 2,365 to 5,836) and smaller towards the more northern and southern ends of the species' range ( e.g., in Cape Cod, reported eggs/cluster = 640 to 1,280; in Florida, reported eggs/cluster = 1,644 to 1,739) (ASMFC 2019; Smith et al. 2017). Once eggs are deposited, according to studies cited in Smith et al. (2017), in general, optimal egg development occurs at salinities between 20 and 30 ppt; however, optimal egg development for HSCs located in microtidal lagoon systems has been observed to occur at 30 to 40 ppt. Studies have found that egg development occurs most rapidly at temperatures ranging from 25° Celsius to 30° Celsius (Smith et al. 2017). However, Bottom and Itow (2009) found that Atlantic HSC embryos and larvae are very tolerant and well adapted to survive a broad range of temperatures and salinities; similar findings were made by Gerhart (2007) and Laughlin (1983).

In general, 2 to 4 weeks after egg deposition, environmental cues associated with patterns of tidal inundation ( i.e., hydration, physical disturbance, hypoosmotic shock) trigger eggs to hatch (ASMFC 2019; Smith et al. 2017). Newly hatched Atlantic HSC larvae, termed trilobites, depend on tidal inundation of the nest to be transported to nearshore, shallow, intertidal flats, just off the spawning and nesting beaches; these areas support growth and development of trilobite and juvenile stages of Atlantic HSC (ASMFC 2019; Smith et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2017). As juvenile Atlantic HSC near sexual maturity, between the ages of 7 or 8, they begin to incrementally move to deeper, subtidal waters of bays or estuaries, before moving to deeper waters of the continental shelf to continue to mature to adulthood (ASMFC 2019; Smith et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2017). Outside of the spawning and nesting season, adult Atlantic HSC may be found in embayments, lagoons, or in offshore waters of the continental shelf and, therefore, may occupy a range of salinities from <10 ppt to >50 ppt (ASMFC 2019; Smith et al. 2017).

The petitions address a single species, L. polyphemus, provide the scientific and common names for this species, and clearly indicate the administrative measures being requested. The petitions also contain detailed, narrative justifications for the requested listing under the ESA and provide information on the species' taxonomy, geographic distribution, and threats. Abundance estimates are lacking for this species; however, information is provided in the petitions and supporting references regarding population status and trends. In the section below, we provide a summary of Atlantic HSC population abundance, status, and trends, and we provide our analysis of whether the information provided in the petitions indicates that the petitioned actions may be warranted.

The abundance of Atlantic HSC, regionally or range-wide, is unknown, with no available historical baseline population data (ASMFC 1998, 2019; Botton et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2023; Smith, J.A. et al. 2022; Zaldívar-Rae et al. 2009). As a result, the size and demographic characteristics of the species prior to unregulated harvest between the mid-19th to late 20th centuries remains uncertain. Most information regarding status and population trends comes from the U.S. east coast ( i.e., Maine to Florida-Atlantic) where the species is managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in accordance with the Interstate Fisheries Management Plan (ISFMP) issued in 1998 (ASMFC 1998; Smith, J.A. et al. 2022).

In terms of its status, both petitions rely largely on the IUCN Red List assessment of the Atlantic HSC (cited on the IUCN website as Smith et al. (2016) and published as Smith et al. (2017)) to support the petitions' claims that the Atlantic HSC is in decline and in danger of extinction. The petitioners focus on the risk assessment profiles by Smith et al. (2016, 2017) of six genetically defined regional (and three Mid-Atlantic sub-regional) Atlantic HSC populations (see table 1); these regional units were informed by the genetic findings of King et al. (2015). Although Smith et al. (2016, 2017) consider the population range-wide ( i.e., Maine to Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico), quantitative data for their assessment relies largely on the fishery-independent data ( i.e., data collected from regional surveys or research outside of the fishery) used for the ASMFC's 2013 Horseshoe Crab Stock Assessment Update (ASMFC 2013). Specifically, the ASMFC HSC assessments rely on regional fishery-independent survey data collected along the U.S. eastern seaboard since the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s to inform regional HSC population trends. Regional population units are defined based on tagging and genetic studies ( e.g., King et al. 2015), and U.S. east coast state boundaries (ASMFC 2019). The regional HSC population trends identified by the ASMFC (2013) are representative of each regional population, where 2012 was the terminal year of the assessment. Given the above, although Smith et al. (2016, 2017) and the ASMFC (2013) sort regional Atlantic HSC populations into slightly different population units and use different methodologies and terms to describe population trends, these two assessments are in general agreement with respect to regional trends through 2012. Specifically, as of 2012, population trends for populations in the Southeast region were increasing, the Delaware Bay region was stable, and population declines were evident in the New York and New England/Northeast regions (see table 1).

Since the implementation of the 1998 ISFMP, the ASMFC has issued multiple Atlantic HSC stock assessments ( i.e., ASMFC 2009, 2013, 2019, 2024a). Together, the ASMFC's 2019 and 2024 stock assessments provide an additional 10 years of data on Atlantic HSC regional populations from New Hampshire through Florida since Smith et al. (2016, 2017). Additionally, although both petitions cite the 2019 Horseshoe Crab Stock Assessment and Peer Review Report (ASMFC 2019), and the CBD petition cites the IUCN's Green Status Assessment  3 (cited on the IUCN website as Smith et al. (2022) and published and referenced here as Smith et al. (2023)) to provide information about threats to the species, neither petition recognizes improvements to the status and trends that were noted in the ASMFC (2019) (table 2) and Smith et al. (2023) (table 3). For example, as of 2012, the ASMFC (2013) reported a declining trend for the Northeast regional population (termed New England under Smith et al. (2016, 2017)); however, as of 2017 (the terminal year of the survey time series reported in the ASMFC (2019)), the Northeast regional population trend was mixed (ASMFC 2019) (tables 1 and 2). Relying on data from the same time period evaluated in the ASMFC (2019), Smith et al. (2023) described populations in this area (identified by Smith et al. 2023 as the Mid-Atlantic: Northeast spatial unit) as “viable” because populations were stable or increasing (table 3). In the 2024 assessment issued by the ASMFC, the Northeast population maintained a “neutral” status (ASMFC 2024a). The information above indicates that when the complete set of available data is considered, there has been improvement in the population status and trends of regional populations from New Hampshire to Florida-Atlantic, with the exception of New York; the petitions do not present this information.

The status and trends of the Gulf of Maine, Northeast-Gulf, and the Yucatán Peninsula regional populations defined by Smith et al. (2016, 2017) (table 1) have been described only qualitatively given the lack of quantitative population data for these specific populations. For these populations, both petitions again rely upon obsolete descriptions of the status of these populations from 2012 and earlier ( i.e., Smith et al. 2016, 2017). The CBD petition, despite citing Smith et al. (2023), does not incorporate new information on the status of these populations provided by this reference. For example, referring to studies conducted in Maine between 2001 to 2010, Smith et al. (2016, 2017) described the Gulf of Maine regional population as small and fragmented, with limited to no spawning; in contrast, Smith et al. (2023) described the “most likely” status for the Gulf of Maine regional population (identified as the Northern Gulf of Maine spatial unit by Smith et al. 2023) as “functional,” which they assigned to populations they consider to be “viable ( i.e., not threatened with extinction)” and functioning appropriately from an ecological standpoint (table 3) (Akcakaya et al. 2018; Smith et al. 2023). Similarly, for the Northeast-Gulf regional population, which consists of Atlantic HSCs found in the coastal waters of western Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, Smith et al. (2016, 2017) identified a decreasing population trend; however, Smith et al. (2023), described the “most likely” status of this population (identified as the Eastern Gulf (Florida Southwest and Florida West) and North Central Gulf spatial units by Smith et al. 2023) as “viable” or “functional” depending on spatial unit (table 3). For the Yucatán regional populations, information provided indicates the species was recognized by Mexico as “in danger of extinction” in 1994 (Botton et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2023; Zaldívar-Rae et al. 2009). Smith et al. (2016, 2017) relied upon studies completed between the 1960s to the early 1990s and described this population as fragmented, with decreased population sizes. However, newer information in Smith et al. (2023) described the “most likely” status of the Yucatán areas as “viable,” which they assigned to populations they considered not to be threatened with extinction ( e.g., stable or increasing) but not fully recovered from previous declines (table 3) (Akcakaya et al. 2018; Smith et al. 2023).” Given the above, while information provided by the petitions indicates the status and trends of these regional populations have been impacted historically, that same information does not support claims that these populations are currently declining (Smith et al. 2023).

Title: Patent and PTAB Pro Bono Programs.

OMB Control Number: 0651-0082.

Abstract: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Public Law 112-29 § 32 (2011) directs the USPTO to work with and support intellectual property law associations across the country in the establishment of pro bono programs designed to assist financially under-resourced independent inventors and small businesses (also referred to as “regional hubs”). To support this, the USPTO works with and supports various non-profit organizations to operate a series of autonomous regional hubs that endeavor to match under-resourced inventors with volunteer patent practitioners across the United States. The regional hubs comprise law schools, bar associations, innovation/entrepreneurial organizations, and arts-focused lawyer referral services that are strategically located to provide access to patent pro bono services across all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

To support the purposes described above, the Patent Pro Bono Survey collects information regarding the activity of the regional hubs. The USPTO works with the Pro Bono Advisory Council (PBAC) to determine what information is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of each regional hub's operations. The PBAC is a well-established group of patent practitioners and thought leaders in intellectual property who provide support and guidance to the regional hubs across the country. The collected data provides the USPTO with valuable information, including the number of inventor inquiries, referral sources, number of pro bono applicants successfully matched with patent practitioners, and types of patent filings. The USPTO, PBAC, and the regional hubs, are responsible for the quarterly collection of this data.

The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), collaborates with the PTAB Bar Association, a non-profit organization that has taken up the task of helping secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of PTAB proceedings and serves the public by coordinating pro bono opportunities. The PTAB Bar Association established a national clearinghouse that acts as a matchmaker connecting under-resourced inventors with volunteer patent practitioners across the United States for assistance in preparing and arguing ex parte appeals before the PTAB. The PTAB Bar Association's national clearinghouse provides nationwide access to legal representation for pro bono ex parte appeal services. The PTAB Pro Bono Program supports the purposes described above by facilitating the availability of pro bono services for proceedings before the PTAB, which the USPTO believes can help reduce the financial burden on under-resourced inventors seeking ex parte appeal assistance.

This information collection covers the surveys used in the Patent and PTAB Pro Bono Programs. The surveys gather information about the effectiveness of the programs and how participants utilize the programs' resources. The information, at its highest level, allows the USPTO to determine whether the regional hubs and national clearinghouse are matching qualified under-resourced inventors with volunteer patent practitioners and help estimate the total economic benefit derived by under-resourced inventors in the form of donated legal services. This information also helps the USPTO determine if the regional hubs and clearinghouse are effectively serving under-resourced inventors and whether they need additional support.

Forms:

Type of Review: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

Affected Public: Private sector.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Frequency: Quarterly, annually.

Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 22 respondents.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 85 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that the responses in this information collection will take the public approximately 1.75 hours (105 minutes) to complete. This includes the time to gather the necessary information, create the document, and submit the completed item to the USPTO.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 149 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Non-hourly Cost Burden: $0.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1910-5134;

(2) Information Collection Request Titled: DOE Loan Guarantees for Energy Projects;

(3) Type of Review: Revision and extension of a currently approved collection;

(4) Purpose: DOE's Loan Guarantees for Energy Projects program is implemented pursuant to Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended (Title 17). 42 U.S.C. 16511 et seq. Under the Title 17 Energy Financing Program the Department of Energy may make guarantees for projects meeting the eligibility requirements set forth at 42 U.S.C. 16513 (also referred to as section 1703 of Title XVII, or the Section 1703 Program) or 42 U.S.C. 16517 (also referred to as section 1706 of Title XVII, or the Section 1706 Program; better known as the Energy Dominance Financing Program). DOE set forth regulations at 10 CFR part 609 to establish application requirements and otherwise implement the Title 17 Program.

This information collection request covers the information necessary to evaluate those applications. The information collected will be used to analyze whether an applicant and its project is eligible under the Title 17 Program. The collection of this information is critical to ensure that the government has sufficient information to determine whether applicants meet the eligibility requirements to qualify under the Title 17 Program and to provide DOE with sufficient information to evaluate an applicant's project using the criteria specified in 10 CFR part 609;

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 100 Respondents;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 100 Responses;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 13,250 Burden Hours;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $3,371,100 (or $33,711 per Respondent).

Statutory Authority: Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended (and codified at 42 U.S.C. 16511 et seq ).

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 06, 2026, by Gregory Beard, Director, Office of Energy Dominance Financing, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1910-5188;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: BPA Security;

(3) Type of Request: Extension;

(4) Purpose: This information collection is associated with BPA's management and oversight of access to BPA offices and facilities in order to provide measures to safeguard personnel; to prevent unauthorized access to equipment, facilities, material and documents; to safeguard against espionage, sabotage, and theft: BPA F 1400.22a—Other Utility/Contractor/Vendor Worker Access Request, BPA F 1400.22e—Non-Government Employee Data in HRMIS, BPA F 5630.04e—Security Privilege Request—for BPA Control Centers, BPA F 5632.01e—Security Incident Report, BPA F 5632.08e—Unclassified Visits and Assignments—Foreign Nationals Registration (Short Form), BPA F 5632.09e—Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Request for LSSO/Smart Credential, BPA F 5632.11a—BPA Visitor(s) Access Request—with continuation page, BPA F 5632.11e—BPA Visitor(s) Access Request, BPA F 5632.12e—Evidence/Chain of Custody Document, BPA F 5632.27e—Badge Replacement Request, BPA F 5632.30e—PIN Code Request, BPA F 5632.31—OUW PIN & Challenge Question Worksheet, BPA F 5632.32e—Card Key Access Request;

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,491;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 8,508;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1,522;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Statutory Authority: The Bonneville Project Act of 1937, 16 U.S.C 832a; and the following additional authorities: 42 U.S.C. 2165 & 7101, et seq; 5 CFR Chapter I parts 5 & 736, E.O. 10450, E.O. 12107, E.O. 12333, E.O. 13284, E.O. 13467, E.O. 13470, E.O. 13488, E.O. 13764, FERC Order No. 706, FIPS 201-3, and HSPD 12.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 5, 2026, by Candice D. Palen, Information Collection Clearance Manager, Bonneville Power Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to provide advice and recommendations concerning the following EM site-specific issues: clean-up activities and environmental restoration; waste and nuclear materials management and disposition; excess facilities; future land use and long-term stewardship. The Board may also be asked to provide advice and recommendations on other EM program components. The Board also provides an avenue to fulfill public participation requirements outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Federal Facility Agreements, Consent Orders, Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements.

Tentative Agenda: (agenda topics are subject to change; please contact Juanita Campbell at juanita.campbell@srs.gov for the most current agenda).

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public and public comment can be given orally or in writing. Fifteen minutes are allocated during the meeting for public comment and those wishing to make oral comment will be given a minimum of two minutes to speak. Written comments received at least two working days prior to the meeting will be provided to the members and included in the meeting minutes. Written comments received within two working days after the meeting will be included in the minutes. For additional information on public comment and to submit written comment, please contact srscitizensadvisoryboard@srs.gov. The EM SSAB, Savannah River Site, welcomes the attendance of the public at its meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact srscitizensadvisoryboard@srs.gov at least seven days in advance of the meeting.

Meeting Conduct: The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Questioning of board members or presenters by the public is not permitted.

Minutes: Minutes will be available at the following website: www.cab.srs.gov.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 13, 2026, by David Borak, Committee Management Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to provide advice and recommendations concerning the following EM site-specific issues: clean-up activities and environmental restoration; waste and nuclear materials management and disposition; excess facilities; future land use and long-term stewardship. The Board may also be asked to provide advice and recommendations on other EM program components. The Board also provides an avenue to fulfill public participation requirements outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Federal Facility Agreements, Consent Orders, Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements.

Tentative Agenda: (agenda topics are subject to change; please contact Bridget Maestas for the most current agenda)

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public and public comment can be given orally or in writing. Fifteen minutes are allocated during the meeting for public comment and those wishing to make oral comment will be given a minimum of two minutes to speak. Written comments received at least two working days prior to the meeting will be provided to the members and included in the meeting minutes. Written comments received within two working days after the meeting will be included in the minutes. For additional information on public comment and to submit written comment, please contact Bridget Maestas. The EM SSAB, Northern New Mexico, welcomes the attendance of the public at its meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Bridget Maestas at least seven days in advance of the meeting.

Meeting Conduct: The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Questioning of board members or presenters by the public is not permitted.

Minutes: Minutes will be available at the following website: https://www.energy.gov/em/nnmcab/northern-new-mexico-citizens-advisory-board.

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 13, 2026, by David Borak, Committee Management Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

Title: FERC-730, Report of Transmission Investment Activity.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0239.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-730 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

Abstract: This collection of information assists the Commission in implementing section 219 of the Federal Power Act (FPA)  1 and 18 CFR 35.35(h), which address incentive-based rate treatments for transmission infrastructure investment. FERC-730 consists of an annual report that includes recent year actual transmission investment, projections of annual investments for the following five years, details on the level and status of transmission investment, and the reasons for delay (if any).

The regulation at 18 CFR 35.35(h) requires public utilities that have been granted incentive rate treatment for specific transmission projects to file FERC Form-730 annually, beginning with the calendar year incentive rate treatment is granted by the Commission. Such filings are due by April 18 of the following calendar year and are due April 18 each year thereafter. The following information must be filed:

(1) In dollar terms, actual transmission investment for the most recent calendar year, and projected, incremental investments for the next five calendar years; and

(2) For all current and projected investments (except projects with projected costs less than $20 million) over the next five calendar years, a project-by-project listing that specifies for each project: details of the transmission project, the most up-to-date expected completion date; percentage completion as of the date of filing; and reasons for any delays.

For good cause shown, the Commission may extend the time within which any FERC-730 filing is to be filed or waive the requirements applicable to any such filing.

The Commission uses the FERC-730 information collection to determine an accurate assessment of the state of transmission investment by public utilities.

Type of Respondents: Public utilities that have been granted incentive-based rate treatment for specific transmission projects under provisions of 18 CFR 35.35.

Estimate of Annual Burden:   2 The Commission estimates 64 responses annually, and per-response burdens of 30 hours and $3,060. The total estimated burdens per year are 1,920 hours and $195,840. These burdens are itemized in the following table:

Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 conveyed approximately 46 million acres of land and monetary compensation to Alaska Native regional and village corporations. Some lands conveyed under ANCSA were contaminated prior to conveyance with substances such as arsenic, asbestos, lead, mercury, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and petroleum products. These contaminants pose risks to human health, wetlands and aquatic resources, and subsistence resources important to Alaska Native communities.

Congress appropriated funding in fiscal year 2023 for EPA to establish and implement a grant program to assist applicants with addressing contamination on ANCSA lands that was present at the time of conveyance. EPA's program supports assessment and cleanup actions in compliance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations.

EPA intends to prepare this programmatic EA, and, to the extent permitted by law, so that the agency may assume the federal responsibilities for NEPA compliance and associated consultations and reviews to alleviate regulatory burden for applicants receiving cooperative agreements under this program. In coordination with the responsible agencies, EPA's environmental review includes consultation (formal and informal) and coordination for wetlands protection and compliance under the Clean Water Act (CWA); Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); Endangered Species Act; Marine Mammal Protection Act; and Essential Fish Habitat.

Consistent with 36 CFR part 800, EPA is initiating NHPA Section 106 consultation for the Contaminated ANCSA Lands Assistance Program and intends to develop a Programmatic Agreement under 36 CFR 800.14(b) with the Alaska SHPO as a signatory, and with invited signatories and concurring parties including Federally Recognized Tribes in Alaska, Alaska Native corporations, and federal partners as appropriate. The PA is expected to: (1) define how areas of potential effects will be established for representative actions; (2) establish standards and procedures for identification and evaluation of historic properties, including archaeological sites, sacred sites, and traditional cultural places; (3) set avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures; and codify inadvertent discovery and unanticipated effects protocols, including stop-work, notification, and coordination procedures; (4) address confidentiality of sensitive cultural resource information, consistent with NHPA Section 304 and other applicable authorities; and (5) provide for monitoring, reporting, curation, training, and dispute resolution.

While the programmatic EA and PA are expected to streamline and tier site-specific reviews and relieve recipients of significant permitting and consultation burdens, some projects may still require additional permits or authorizations. For example, certain activities may trigger permitting under CWA Section 404 in which case any such permitting decisions will be made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which EPA has invited to participate as a cooperating agency. Additionally, EPA has invited the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Program, to participate as a cooperating agency because of USACE's extensive experience with contaminated-site cleanups in Alaska and its federal archaeological and cultural resources subject-matter expertise, including Section 106 compliance.

EPA is inviting the State of Alaska to participate as a cooperating agency in the development of this EA because all ANCSA contaminated sites will be cleaned to the appropriate State of Alaska cleanup standards, with respect to other relevant state laws and regulations specific to the site.

EPA is issuing cooperative agreements under the Contaminated ANCSA Lands Assistance Program. At present, Federal environmental reviews and compliance process is often complex and unclear to EPA's cooperative agreement recipients. Through EPA's extensive work in Alaska, Region 10 also recognizes that many cooperative agreement recipients lack the environmental and legal resources to complete environmental reviews and consultations in an expeditious manner. Understanding these distinct issues, this programmatic EA and the accompanying Section 106 Programmatic Agreement are intended to reduce those barriers and provide a more efficient and consistent pathway to environmental compliance and site closure to fulfill EPA's directive from Congress to continue Federal efforts to resolve long-standing issues surrounding Indigenous land claims in Alaska.

EPA proposes to implement the Contaminated ANCSA Lands Assistance Program through financial assistance to eligible entities for activities such as site assessment and characterization; removal actions; remediation and stabilization; debris and hazardous materials management; institutional controls; and associated community engagement and training. The programmatic EA will evaluate:

1. No Action Alternative (continuing awards or cleanup activities under the program as is).

2. Proposed Action Alternative (environmental compliance efforts undertaken by cooperative agreement recipients are significantly reduced).

3. Reasonable variations or mitigation approaches ( e.g., enhanced avoidance buffers and seasonal work windows near sensitive cultural sites, subsistence use areas, and wetlands).

EPA requests input on the following topics and any additional issues or data sources relevant to the EA:

Archaeological and cultural resources: identification, evaluation, and protection of historic properties and archaeological sites; development of the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement under 36 CFR 800.14(b); compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Tribal consultation; confidentiality of sensitive site information; inadvertent discovery protocols; and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.

Protected subsistence resources and uses: effects on fish, wildlife, marine mammals, plants, and habitats that support subsistence uses protected under applicable federal laws ( e.g., ANILCA Title VIII), including potential changes to access, timing, distribution, or abundance; beneficial effects from hazard reduction; and measures to avoid or minimize disruption to subsistence activities.

Wetlands and aquatic resources: potential temporary and long-term impacts on wetlands and waters (including hydrology, habitat, and water quality); compliance with the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands); avoidance and minimization practices; and best management practices for work in or near wetlands and surface waters.

Sociocultural and community considerations: community health and well-being; preservation of traditional cultural landscapes; equity in benefits from cleanup; community engagement and communication approaches; and cumulative impacts.

Additional resource areas: threatened and endangered species; air quality; noise; land use; and waste management practices relevant to representative cleanup actions.

EPA invites federal and state agencies, Federally Recognized Tribes, and Alaska Native corporations with jurisdiction or special expertise to participate as cooperating agencies, as appropriate. EPA has invited the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to participate as a cooperating agency, particularly regarding potential Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting, its extensive experience with contaminated-site cleanups in Alaska and its federal archaeological and cultural resources subject-matter expertise, including Section 106 compliance.

EPA is also inviting the State of Alaska to participate as a cooperating agency, because of the State's significant interest and respective legal authority.

For NHPA Section 106, EPA is initiating consultation with the Alaska SHPO and invites Federally Recognized Tribes in Alaska, Alaska Native corporations, and other parties with demonstrated interest or expertise to participate as consulting parties in the development of the Programmatic Agreement and in subsequent reviews tiered to the PA. EPA will notify and invite the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to participate in the PA, as appropriate, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a). EPA will fulfill consultation responsibilities, including under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and will coordinate, as applicable, with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and other relevant agencies.

Submittal EPA seeks comments that identify issues, data, and reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures to inform the EA and initial input to inform the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement. If you are commenting, we request that you please address the following factors:

1. Describe the specific topic or location and, if available, provide supporting data or references.

2. Identify any seasonal or cultural considerations ( e.g., subsistence harvest periods, cultural use areas) that may inform timing and methods for cleanup.

3. Note any potential public health or safety concerns and suggest best practices .

In addition, EPA invites requests from individuals and organizations that seek consulting party status under Section 106 for this program. Requests should briefly describe the requester's interest and expertise and any relevant area(s) of concern. EPA will consider such requests consistent with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(5). EPA intends to make a draft Programmatic Agreement available for public review; a notice of availability will be posted to the docket identified below, and public comments will be accepted prior to execution of the PA.

The scoping period begins upon publication of this notice. Scoping comments must be received on or before March 20, 2026. Requests to participate as a consulting party in Section 106 consultation and initial input on the scope and content of the Programmatic Agreement should be submitted on or before March 20, 2026. Tribal consultations will be held upon request.

You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OFA-2026-1322, by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

• Email: ANCSA Program Team at ancsa@epa.gov.

• Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, ANCSA Program, 222 W 7th Ave. Suite 537, Anchorage, Alaska 99513.

Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. To the maximum extent authorized by law, EPA will protect from disclosure sensitive cultural resource information under NHPA Section 304 and other applicable authorities. EPA will announce availability of the Draft EA and the draft Programmatic Agreement for public review in a future Federal Register notice.

The Lifeline program provides support for discounted broadband and voice services to low-income consumers. Lifeline is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under FCC direction. Consumers qualify for Lifeline through proof of income or participation in a qualifying program, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit, or various Tribal-specific federal assistance programs.

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, 2129-36 (2020), Congress created the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, and directed use of the National Verifier to determine eligibility based on various criteria, including the qualifications for Lifeline (Medicaid, SNAP, etc.). EBBP provided $3.2 billion in monthly consumer discounts for broadband service and one-time provider reimbursement for a connected device (laptop, desktop computer or tablet). In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat. 429, 1238-44 (2021) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1751-52), Congress modified and extended EBBP, provided an additional $14.2 billion, and renamed it the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). A household may qualify for the ACP benefit under various criteria, including an individual qualifying for the FCC's Lifeline program.

In a Report and Order adopted on March 31, 2016, (81 FR 33026, May 24, 2016) ( 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order ), the Commission ordered USAC to create a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (“National Verifier”), including the National Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED), that would match data about Lifeline applicants and subscribers with other data sources to verify the eligibility of an applicant or subscriber. The Commission found that the National Verifier would reduce compliance costs for Lifeline service providers, improve service for Lifeline subscribers, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 directs the FCC to leverage the National Verifier to verify applicants' eligibility for ACP. The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of Lifeline and ACP applicants and subscribers by determining whether they receive SNAP and Medicaid benefits administered by the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration Division of Family Resources.

Indiana Family and Social Services Administration Division of Family Resources (source agency); Federal Communications Commission (recipient agency) and Universal Service Administrative Company.

The authority to conduct the matching program for the FCC's ACP is 47 U.S.C. 1752(a)-(b). The authority to conduct the matching program for the FCC's Lifeline program is 47 U.S.C. 254(a)-(c), (j).

The purpose of this new matching agreement is to verify the eligibility of applicants and subscribers to Lifeline, as well as to ACP and other Federal programs that use qualification for Lifeline as an eligibility criterion. This new agreement will permit eligibility verification for the Lifeline program and ACP by checking an applicant's/subscriber's participation in SNAP and Medicaid in Indiana Family and Social Services Administration Division of Family Resources. Under FCC rules, consumers receiving these benefits qualify for Lifeline discounts and also for ACP benefits.

The categories of individuals whose information is involved in the matching program include, but are not limited to, those individuals who have applied for Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; are currently receiving Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; are individuals who enable another individual in their household to qualify for Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; are minors whose status qualifies a parent or guardian for Lifeline and/or ACP benefits; or are individuals who have received Lifeline and/or ACP benefits.

The categories of records involved in the matching program include the last four digits of the applicant's Social Security Number, date of birth, first and last name. The National Verifier will transfer these data elements to the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration Division of Family Resources which will respond either “yes” or “no” that the individual is enrolled in a qualifying assistance program: SNAP and Medicaid administered by the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration Division of Family Resources.

The records shared as part of this matching program reside in the Lifeline system of records, FCC/WCB-1, Lifeline, which was published in the Federal Register at 89 FR 28777 (Apr. 19, 2024).

The records shared as part of this matching program reside in the ACP system of records, FCC/WCB-3, Affordable Connectivity Program, which was published in the Federal Register at 89 FR 28780 (Apr. 19, 2024).