On October 29, 2020, FSIS published the final rule “Egg Products Inspection Regulations” (85 FR 68640). Among other things, the final rule required official egg products plants to comply with sanitation and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) requirements in 9 CFR parts 416 and 417. Anticipating that egg products plants might need assistance in complying with the new rule and its requirements, FSIS developed and published the “Food Safety Guideline for Egg Products” on September 9, 2020 (85 FR 68640).

FSIS has made the following changes to the guideline to address questions it received after publishing the previous version and to include additional scientific information:

• Included guidance on plant support for sanitation standard operating procedures (sanitation SOPs), including less-than-daily (LTD) sanitation;

• Added Bacillus cereus as an example of a potential hazard in egg products that undergo enzyme modification;

• Included a section on cooking egg products in lieu of pasteurization;

• Revised language, structure, and formatting to improve readability.

The revised guideline represents FSIS' current thinking on these topics and should be considered usable as of its issuance. The guideline does not create any new legal requirements or have the force and effect of law. It is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing regulations.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS web page located at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register. FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their accounts.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the State or local Agency that administers the program or contact USDA through the Telecommunications Relay Service at 711 (voice and TTY). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Title: Equal Opportunity Program Delivery Compliance Review Tool.

OMB Number: 0596-0215.

Expiration Date of Approval: October 31, 2026.

Type of Review: Extension with no Revision of a currently approved information collection.

All Federal agencies must comply with equal opportunity laws:

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended

• Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972

• The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended

• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended

• Executive orders to advance equal opportunity, nondiscrimination, and meritocracy in the delivery of all programs and services to the public.

Federal agencies and entities receiving Federal Financial Assistance are prohibited from discriminating. Federal Financial Assistance is defined as, “Federal monies given by grants, cooperative agreements, commercial special use permits, training, loan/temporary assignment of federal personnel, loan/use of Federal property at below market value.”

The Equal Opportunity (E.O.) laws require agencies to conduct compliance reviews to ensure that entities receiving Federal Financial Assistance from the government are adhering to the nondiscrimination statutes. The statutes require that prior to awarding support or issuing permits, the Federal government shall conduct pre-award reviews to ensure that potential recipients understand their responsibilities to provide services equitable pursuant to the law. Thereafter, during the partnership with the agency, ongoing monitoring will take place to ensure that public is served without any barriers or discrimination.

Forest Service employees will use FS-1700-6A, Equal Opportunity Compliance Review Record, to document shared non-discrimination obligations and collect information regarding actions taken by recipients of Federal financial assistance to ensure the public receives services without discrimination or barriers to access. Optional form B documents that recipients' employees understand their customer service role and optional form C is for customers' awareness of their rights of non-discrimination.

Collection form FS-1700-6A, Equal Opportunity Compliance Review Record, will occur during face-to-face meetings or telephone interviews conducted by a Forest Service employee as part of the pre-award and post-award process. The pre-award interview will take place prior to the signing of a cooperative agreement, domestic grant, commercial special use permit award or similar where a non-discrimination clause appears in the agreement. The post award interview will take place either on a five (5) or 10-year basis as instructed in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1709.11, Chapter 70 or upon report/discovery of discrimination.

Only general statistical information will be summarized and shared in the Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) annual report. However, if a report or discovery of a discrimination complaint is identified then it will be reported to the USDA Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.

Monitoring reviews have been a responsibility of the Federal government since 1964 and continue to be an obligatory activity as outlined in 28 Code of Federal Regulations 42.401-415 and 7 Code of Federal Regulation 15.5. Without the ability to monitor recipients of Federal financial assistance, the Forest Service would not be able to ensure compliance with the civil rights laws, statutes, and current Executive Orders (E.O.). The Agency would not be aware of potential discriminatory practices. Absence of this form leaves the American people and the public that we serve vulnerable to non-merit-based decisions and discrimination.

Affected Public: Recipients of Federal financial assistance, the American taxpayer and public(s) that we serve.

Estimated Annual Burden Per Response: 1/hr.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 3,294/yr.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 4/yr.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 2,394.

Comment is invited on (1) whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden 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 to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request for Office of Management and Budget approval.

On April 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of tin mill products from China, Taiwan, and Türkiye, filed in proper form on behalf of United States Steel Corporation and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Union (the petitioners), a domestic producer of tin mill products and a certified union, which represents the workers engaged in the production of tin mill products in the United States. 1 The AD Petitions were accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of tin mill products from China. 2

Between April 15 and April 27, 2026, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in supplemental questionnaires. 3 Between April 20 and 28, 2026, the petitioners filed timely responses to these requests for additional information. 4

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of tin mill products from China, Taiwan, and the Republic of Türkiye are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the tin mill products industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioners are interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested LTFV investigations. 5

Because the Petitions were filed on April 9, 2026, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for the Taiwan and Türkiye LTFV investigations is April 1, 2025, through March 31, 2026. Because China is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for the China LTFV investigation is October 1, 2025, through March 31, 2026.

The products covered by these investigations are tin mill products from China, Taiwan, and Türkiye. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 6 Commerce will consider all scope comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information, all such factual information should be limited to public information. 7 Commerce requests that interested parties provide at the beginning of their scope comments a public executive summary for each comment or issue raised in their submission. Commerce further requests that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each comment or issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. Commerce intends to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the analysis of scope comments. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that scope comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on May 19, 2026, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, and should also be limited to public information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 29, 2026, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.

Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent LTFV and CVD investigations.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 8 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due.

Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of tin mill products to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors of production (FOP) or cost of production (COP) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria.

Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) general product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe tin mill products, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 19, 2026, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 29, 2026, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of each of the LTFV investigations.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 9 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 10

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. 11 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that tin mill products, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 12

In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own production of tin mill products in 2025. 13 The petitioners stated that the USW represents workers accounting for all U.S. production of tin mill products, and as such, the supporters of the Petitions account for 100 percent of U.S. production of the domestic like product in 2025. 14 We relied on data provided by the petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support. 15

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the First General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions. 16 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g., polling). 17 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 18 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions. 19 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 20

The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 21

The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant increase in the volume of subject imports; increased market share of subject imports; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; idled facilities; lost sales and revenues; and adverse impact on operational and financial performance. 22 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 23

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate LTFV investigations of imports of tin mill products from China, Taiwan, and Türkiye. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.

For China, the petitioners based export price (EP) on POI average unit values (AUVs) derived from official import statistics. 24 For Taiwan and Türkiye, the petitioners based EP on (1) POI AUVs derived from official import statistics and (2) transaction-specific AUVs ( i.e., month- and port-specific AUVs) derived from official import statistics and tied to ship manifest data. 25 The petitioners made certain adjustments to U.S. price to calculate a net ex-factory U.S. price, where applicable. 26

For Taiwan and Türkiye, the petitioners calculated NV on home market pricing information they obtained for tin mill products produced in and sold, or offered for sale, in each country during the POI. 28 The petitioners provided information indicating that the prices for tin mill products sold or offered for sale in Taiwan and Türkiye were below the COP. 29 Therefore, for each country, the petitioners calculated NV based on CV. 30 For further discussion of CV, see the section “Normal Value Based on Constructed Value.”

Commerce considers China to be an NME country. 31 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by Commerce. Therefore, we continue to treat China as an NME country for purposes of the initiation of the LTFV investigation. Accordingly, we base NV on FOPs valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance with section 773(C) of the Act.

The petitioners claim that Brazil, Mexico, and Türkiye are appropriate surrogate countries for China because they are market economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of China and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. 32 The petitioners provided publicly available information from Brazil, Malaysia, and Türkiye to value all FOPs, where applicable. 33 Based on the information provided by the petitioners, we believe it is appropriate to use Brazil, Mexico, and Türkiye as the primary surrogate countries for China to value FOPs for initiation purposes.

Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.

Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Chinese producers/exporters was not reasonably available, the petitioners used their own production experience and product-specific consumptions rates for tin mill products as a surrogate to value Chinese manufacturers' FOPs. 34 Additionally, the petitioners calculated factory overhead, SG&A, and profit based on the experience of Brazilian, Mexican, and Turkish producers of comparable merchandise. 35

As noted above for Taiwan and Türkiye, the petitioners provided information indicating the prices for tin mill products sold or offered for sale in Taiwan and Türkiye were below the COP. Therefore, the petitioners calculated NV based on CV. 36

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners calculated CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and profit. 37 For Taiwan and Türkiye, in calculating the cost of manufacturing, the petitioners relied on their own production experience and input consumption rates for tin mill products, valued using publicly available information applicable to the respective countries. 38 For Taiwan, in calculating SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and profit ratios, the petitioners relied on the fiscal year 2024 financial statements of a producer of identical merchandise domiciled in Taiwan. 39 For Türkiye, in calculating SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and profit ratios, the petitioners relied on the fiscal year 2025 financial statements of a producer of identical merchandise domiciled in Türkiye. 40

Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of tin mill products from China, Taiwan, and Türkiye are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for tin mill products for each of the countries covered by the initiation are as follows: (1) China (Brazil surrogate)—136.52 percent; (2) China (Mexico surrogate)—121.29 percent; (3) China (Türkiye surrogate)—85.87 percent; (4) Taiwan—60.68 to 137.24 percent; and (5) Türkiye—41.11 to 198.04 percent. 41

Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating LTFV investigations to determine whether imports of tin mill products from China, Taiwan, and Türkiye are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

In the Petitions, the petitioners identified 53 companies in China as producers and/or exporters of tin mill products. 42 Our standard practice for respondent selection in AD investigations involving NME countries is to select respondents based on quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires in cases where Commerce has determined that the number of companies is large, and it cannot individually examine each company based upon its resources. Therefore, considering the number of producers and/or exporters identified in the Petitions, Commerce will solicit Q&V information that can serve as a basis for selecting exporters for individual examination in the event that Commerce determines that the number is large and decides to limit the number of respondents individually examined pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Because there are 53 Chinese producers and/or exporters identified in the Petitions, Commerce has determined that it will issue Q&V questionnaires to the largest producers and/or exporters in China that are identified in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection POI entry data for which there is complete address information on the record. 43

Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing instructions on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/ec-adcvd-qv-questionnaire. Producers/exporters of tin mill products from China that do not receive Q&V questionnaires may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from Commerce's website. Responses to the Q&V questionnaire must be submitted by the relevant Chinese producers/exporters no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on May 13, 2026, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V questionnaire responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the deadline noted above.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/administrative-protective-orders.

In the Petitions, the petitioners identified two companies in Taiwan, and three companies in Türkiye. 44 Following standard practice in LTFV investigations involving market economy countries, in the event Commerce determines that the number of companies is large, and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resource, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on CBP data for imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings listed in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix.

On April 28, 2026, Commerce released CBP data on imports of tin mill products from Taiwan  45 and Türkiye  46 under APO to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations. Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). As stated above, instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/administrative-protective-orders.

In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application. The specific requirements for submitting a separate rate application in an NME investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/non-market-economy-separate-rate-applications-and-certifications. Note that Commerce recently promulgated new regulations pertaining to separate rates, including the separate rate application deadline and eligibility for separate rate status, in 19 CFR 351.108. 47 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.108(d)(1), the separate rate application will be due 21 days after publication of this initiation notice. 48 Exporters and producers must file a timely separate rate application if they want to be considered for individual examination. In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.108(e), exporters and producers who submit a separate rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate rate status only if they fully respond to all parts of Commerce's AD questionnaire and participate in the LTFV proceeding as mandatory respondents. 49 Commerce requires that companies from China submit a response both to the Q&V questionnaire and to the separate rate application by the respective deadlines to receive consideration for separate rate status. Companies not filing a timely Q&V questionnaire response will not receive separate rate consideration.

Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the Governments of China, Taiwan, and Türkiye via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of tin mill products from China, Taiwan, and Türkiye are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. 51 Negative ITC determinations for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country. 52 Otherwise, these LTFV investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted  53 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 54 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act ( i.e., a cost-based PMS allegation), the submission must be filed in accordance with the requirements of 19 CFR 351.416(b), and Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a cost-based PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), sets a deadline for the submission of cost-based PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a cost-based PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial section D questionnaire response

We note that a PMS allegation filed pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) or 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act ( i.e., a sales-based PMS allegation) must be filed within 10 days of submission of a respondent's initial section B questionnaire response, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(i) and 19 CFR 351.404(c)(2).

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. 55 For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, standalone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits, where we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning the extension of time limits and the Time Limits Final Rule prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. 56

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 57 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 58 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) ( e.g., by filing the required letter of appearance). Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 59

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On April 8, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of polytetramethylene ether glycol (PTMEG) from China, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, filed in proper form on behalf of BASF Corporation (the petitioner), a domestic producer of PTMEG. 1

Between April 13 and 22, 2026, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in supplemental questionnaires. 2 Between April 16 and 23, 2026, the petitioner filed timely responses to these requests for additional information. 3

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of PTMEG from China, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the PTMEG industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested LTFV investigations. 4

Because the Petitions were filed on April 8, 2026, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) for Korea and Taiwan LTFV investigations is April 1, 2025 through March 31, 2026. Because China and Vietnam are non-market economy countries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for the China and Vietnam LTFV investigations is October 1, 2025 through March 31, 2026.

The product covered by these investigations is PTMEG from China, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice.

Between April 13 and 21, 2026, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. 5 Between April 16 and 22, 2026, the petitioner provided clarifications and revised the scope. 6 The description of merchandise covered by these investigations, as described in the appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 7 Commerce will consider all scope comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information, all such factual information should be limited to public information. 8 Commerce requests that interested parties provide at the beginning of their scope comments a public executive summary for each comment or issue raised in their submission. Commerce further requests that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each comment or issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. Commerce intends to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the analysis of scope comments. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that scope comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on May 18, 2026, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, and should also be limited to public information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 28, 2026, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.

Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent LTFV investigations.

All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 9 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due.

Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of PTMEG to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors of production (FOP) or cost of production (COP) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria.

Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) general product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe PTMEG, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 18, 2026, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 28, 2026, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the each of the LTFV investigations.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 10 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 11

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of these investigations. 12 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that PTMEG, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. 13

In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2025. 14 The petitioner identified itself as the only producer of PTMEG in the United States; therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry. 15 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support. 16

Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the First General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions. 17 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( e.g., polling). 18 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 19 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions. 20 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 21

The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 22

The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant increase in the volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production, capacity utilization, and U.S shipments; and negative impact on financial performance. 23 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, cumulation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 24

The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate LTFV investigations of imports of PTMEG from China, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.

For China, the petitioner based export price (EP) on pricing information for PTMEG produced in China and offered for sale in the U.S. market. 25 For Taiwan, the petitioner based EP on: (1) pricing information for PTMEG produced in Taiwan and offered for sale in the U.S. market; and (2) transaction-specific average unit values (AUVs) ( i.e. month- and port-specific AUVs) derived from official import statistics tied to ship manifest data. 26 For Korea and Vietnam, the petitioner based EP on transaction-specific AUVs ( i.e. month- and port-specific AUVs) derived from official import statistics tied to ship manifest data. 27 The petitioner made certain adjustments to U.S. price to calculate a net ex-factory U.S. price, where applicable. 28

For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioner based normal value (NV) on home market pricing information it obtained for PTMEG produced in and sold, or offered for sale, in the respective countries during the applicable time period. 30 For both countries, the petitioner provided information indicating that the prices for PTMEG sold or offered for sale in the respective home markets were below the COP. 31 Therefore, for both countries, the petitioner calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). 32 For further discussion of CV, see the section “Normal Value Based on Constructed Value.”

Commerce considers China and Vietnam to be NME countries. 33 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by Commerce. Therefore, we continue to treat China and Vietnam as NME countries for purposes of the initiation of these LTFV investigations. Accordingly, we base NV on FOPs valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

The petitioner claims that Brazil, Malaysia, and Mexico are appropriate surrogate countries for China because they are market economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of China and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. 34 The petitioner provided publicly available information from Brazil, Malaysia, and Mexico to value all FOPs. 35 Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe it is appropriate to use Brazil, Malaysia, and Mexico as surrogate countries for China to value all FOPs for initiation purposes.

The petitioner claims that El Salvador, Indonesia, and Jordan are appropriate surrogate countries for Vietnam because they are market economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam. 36 The petitioner provided publicly available information from El Salvador, Indonesia, and Jordan to value all FOPs. 37 Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe it is appropriate to use El Salvador, Indonesia, and Jordan as surrogate countries for Vietnam to value all FOPs for initiation purposes.

Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determinations.

Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Chinese and Vietnamese producers/exporters was not reasonably available, the petitioner used its own production experience and product-specific consumption rates as a surrogate to value Chinese and Vietnamese manufacturers' FOPs. 38 For China, the petitioner calculated factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A), and profit based on the experiences of Brazilian, Malaysian, and Mexican producers of comparable merchandise. 39 For Vietnam, the petitioner calculated factory overhead, SG&A, and profit based on the experience of an Indonesian producer of comparable merchandise. 40

As noted above for Korea and Taiwan, the petitioner provided information indicating that the prices for PTMEG sold or offered for sale in the respective home markets were below the COP. Therefore, for both countries, the petitioner calculated NV based on CV. 41

For Korea and Taiwan, in calculating the cost of manufacturing, the petitioner relied on its own production experience and input consumption rates, valued using publicly available information applicable to Korea and Taiwan. 42 In calculating SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and profit ratios, the petitioner relied on the 2025 financial statement of a producer of comparable merchandise domiciled in Korea and the 2024 financial statement of a producer of comparable merchandise domiciled in Taiwan, respectively. 43

Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of PTMEG from China, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for PTMEG from each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) China (Brazil surrogate)—197.44 to 339.69 percent; China (Malaysia surrogate)—184.34 to 212.10 percent; China (Mexico surrogate) 174.95 to 209.66 percent; (2) Korea—49.79 to 137.64 percent; (3) Taiwan—6.17 to 206.12 percent; (4) Vietnam (El Salvador surrogate)—138.11 to 201.99 percent; Vietnam (Indonesia surrogate)—149.88 to 212.32 percent; and Vietnam (Jordan surrogate)—100.61 to 151.47 percent. 44

Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating LTFV investigations to determine whether imports of PTMEG from China, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

The petitioner identified 21 companies in China and one company in Vietnam as producers and/or exporters of PTMEG. 45 Our standard practice for respondent selection in AD investigations involving NME countries is to select respondents based on Q&V questionnaires in cases where it has determined that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon its resources. Therefore, considering the number of producers and/or exporters identified in the Petition, Commerce will solicit Q&V information that can serve as a basis for selecting exporters for individual examination in the event that Commerce determines that the number is large and decides to limit the number of respondents individually examined pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Given the number of producers and/or exporters identified in the Petitions, for China and Vietnam, Commerce has determined that it will issue Q&V questionnaires to the producers and/or exporters for which there is complete address information on the record.

Commerce will also post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing instructions on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/ec-adcvd-qv-questionnaire. Exporters/producers of PTMEG from China and Vietnam that do not receive Q&V questionnaires may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from Commerce's website. Responses to the Q&V questionnaire must be submitted by the relevant producers/exporters no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 12, 2026, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the deadline noted above.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under an administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/administrative-protective-orders.

In the Petitions, the petitioners identified two companies in Korea ( i.e., BASF Company Ltd. and Korea PTG Co., Ltd.) and two companies in Taiwan ( i.e., Dairen Chemical Corporation and Formosa Asahi Spandex Co., Ltd.) as producers/exporters of PTMEG and provided independent third-party information as support. 46 We currently know of no additional producers/exporters of PTMEG from Korea and Taiwan.

Accordingly, Commerce intends to individually examine the only two producers/exporters in Korea and Taiwan ( i.e., the companies cited above) in the investigations. We invite interested parties to comment on this issue. Such comments may include factual information within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21). Parties wishing to comment must do so within three business days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Because we intend to examine all known producers/exporters in Korea and Taiwan, if no comments are received or if comments received further support the existence of these producers/exporters, we do not intend to conduct respondent selection and will proceed to issuing the initial AD questionnaire to the companies identified. However, if comments are received which create a need for a respondent selection process, we intend to finalize our decision regarding the respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/administrative-protective-orders.

In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application. The specific requirements for submitting a separate rate application in an NME investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/non-market-economy-separate-rate-applications-and-certifications. Note that Commerce recently promulgated new regulations pertaining to separate rates, including the separate rate application deadline and eligibility for separate rate status, in 19 CFR 351.108. 47 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.108(d)(1), the separate rate application will be due 21 days after publication of this initiation notice. 48 Exporters and producers must file a timely separate rate application if they want to be considered for individual examination. In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.108(e), exporters and producers who submit a separate rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate rate status only if they fully respond to all parts of Commerce's AD questionnaire and participate in the LTFV proceeding as mandatory respondents. 49 Commerce requires that companies from China and Vietnam submit a response both to the Q&V questionnaire and to the separate rate application by the respective deadlines to receive consideration for separate rate status. Companies not filing a timely Q&V questionnaire response will not receive separate rate consideration.

Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the Governments of China, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of PTMEG from China, Korea, Taiwan, and/or Vietnam are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. 51 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country. 52 Otherwise, these LTFV investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted  53 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 54 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the COP in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act ( i.e., a cost-based PMS allegation), the submission must be filed in accordance with the requirements of 19 CFR 351.416(b), and Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a cost-based PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), sets a deadline for the submission of cost-based PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a cost-based PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial section D questionnaire response

We note that a PMS allegation filed pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) or 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act ( i.e., a sales-based PMS allegation) must be filed within 10 days of submission of a respondent's initial section B questionnaire response, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(i) and 19 CFR 351.404(c)(2).

Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. 55 For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, standalone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits, where we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary circumstances exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations concerning the extension of time limits and the Time Limits Final Rule prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. 56

Any party submitting factual information in an AD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 57 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 58 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) ( e.g., by filing the required letter of appearance). Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 59

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On February 16, 2021, Commerce published the Order on millwork products from China. 1 On January 2, 2026, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the first sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.218(c). 2

On January 20, 2026, Commerce received a notice of intent to participate in this review from the domestic interested party, 3 within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 4 The domestic interested party claims that it has interested party status within the meaning of section 771(9)(F) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)(29)(vii)-(viii) as a coalition of U.S. producers of the domestic like product. 5

On August 6, 2004, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD order on tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from China. 1 On October 1, 2026, the ITC instituted, 2 and on October 3, 2026, Commerce initiated, 3 the fourth sunset review of the Orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of its review, Commerce determined that revocation of the Order would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping, and therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail should the Order be revoked. 4

On April 30, 2026, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the Order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 5

The product covered by this Order is tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (THFA) from China, or C5H10O2. THFA, a primary alcohol, is a clear, water white to pale yellow liquid. THFA is a member of the heterocyclic compounds known as furans and is miscible with water and soluble in many common organic solvents. THFA is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 2932.13.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, Commerce's written description of the merchandise subject to the Order is dispositive.

As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the Order. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.

The effective date of the continuation of the Order will be April 30, 2026. 6 Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year reviews of the Order not later than 30 days prior to fifth anniversary of the date of the last determination by the ITC.

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 violation which is subject to sanction.

This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

On April 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of tin mill products from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form on behalf of United States Steel Corporation and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (the petitioners), a domestic producer of tin mill products and a certified union, which represents workers engaged in the production of tin mill products in the United States. 1

The CVD Petition was accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of tin mill products from China, Taiwan, and the Republic of Türkiye. 2

Between April 15 and 22, 2026, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in supplemental questionnaires. 3 Between April 20 and 23, 2026, the petitioners filed timely responses to these requests for additional information. 4

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of China (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of tin mill products from China, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing tin mill products in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition was accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioners are interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigation. 5

Background

On February 16, 2021, Commerce published the Order in the Federal Register . 1 On January 2, 2026, Commerce published the notice of initiation of this first sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2

On January 20, 2026, Commerce received a timely and complete notice of intent to participate in the sunset review for the domestic interested party  3 within the deadline specified in the 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 4 The domestic interested party claimed interested party status within the meaning of section 771(9)(F) of the Act as a coalition of U.S. producers of the domestic like product. 5 On January 22, 2026, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that it had received a notice of intent to participate from the domestic interested party. 6

On February 2, 2026, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i), the domestic interested party filed a timely and adequate substantive response. 7 Commerce did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party. On February 23, 2026, Commerce notified the ITC that it did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested parties. 8 As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce is conducting an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the Order.

The product covered by these Order is millwork products from China. For the full description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decisions Memorandum. 9

A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the Order and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the Order were to be revoked, is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 10 A list of the topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached in the Appendix to this notice. 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 directly accessed at https://access.trade.gov/frnotices.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1), 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the Order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average dumping margins up to 231.60 percent.

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

We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).

The APT meeting will be held Monday, May 11, 2026, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. HST (7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. Samoa Standard Time (SST); 4:30 a.m. to 12 noon on May 12, 2026, Chamorro Standard Time (ChST)) and Tuesday, May 12, 2026 between 8:30 a.m. and 12 p.m. (7:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. SST; 4:30 a.m. to 8 a.m. on May 13, 2026, ChST). The FDCRC TC will meet Tuesday, May 12, 2026 between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. HST (12 p.m. and 3 p.m. SST; 9 a.m.—12 p.m. on May 13, 2026, ChST). The APT will meet jointly with the PPT on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. HST (7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. SST; 4:30 a.m. to 12 noon on May 14, 2026, ChST). The PPT will meet on Thursday and Friday, May 14-15, 2026, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. HST (7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. SST; 4:30 a.m. to 12 noon on May 15-16, 2026, ChST). Opportunities to present oral public comment will be provided on the agenda. The order of the agenda may change, and will be announced in advance at the meeting. The meeting may run past the scheduled times noted above to complete scheduled business.

Special Accommodations: These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Please direct requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids to Kitty M. Simonds (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above) at least five days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Section 118 of the MMPA requires NMFS to place all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the level of incidental M/SI of marine mammals occurring in each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(1)). The classification of a fishery on the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery may be required to comply with certain provisions of the MMPA, such as those regarding registration, observer coverage, and TRP requirements. NMFS must reexamine the LOF annually, considering new information in the Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) and other relevant sources, and publish in the Federal Register any necessary changes to the LOF after notice and opportunity for public comment (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(1)(C)).

The definitions for the fishery classification criteria can be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2). The criteria are also summarized here.

The fishery classification criteria consist of a two-tiered, stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock and then addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each stock. This approach is based on consideration of the rate, in numbers of animals per year, of incidental mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals due to commercial fishing operations relative to the potential biological removal (PBR) level for each marine mammal stock. The MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(20)) defines the PBR level as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock, while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. This definition can also be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2).

Tier 1: Tier 1 considers the cumulative fishery M/SI for a particular stock. If the total annual M/SI of a marine mammal stock across all fisheries is less than or equal to 10 percent of the PBR level of the stock, all fisheries interacting with the stock will be placed in Category III (unless those fisheries interact with other stock(s) for which total annual M/SI is greater than 10 percent of PBR). Otherwise, these fisheries are subject to the next tier of analysis (Tier 2) to determine their classification.

Tier 2: Tier 2 considers fishery-specific M/SI for a particular stock.

Category I: Annual M/SI of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the PBR level ( i.e., frequent incidental M/SI of marine mammals).

Category II: Annual M/SI of a stock in a given fishery is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent of the PBR level ( i.e., occasional incidental M/SI of marine mammals).

Category III: Annual M/SI of a stock in a given fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent of the PBR level ( i.e., a remote likelihood of or no known incidental M/SI of marine mammals).

Additional details regarding how the categories were determined are provided in the preamble to the final rule implementing section 118 of the MMPA (60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995).

Because fisheries are classified on a per-stock basis, a fishery may qualify as one category for one marine mammal stock and another category for a different marine mammal stock. A fishery is classified on the LOF at its highest level of classification ( e.g., a fishery qualifying for Category III for one marine mammal stock and for Category II for another marine mammal stock will be listed under Category II). The superscript “1” in tables 1 and 2 identifies stocks whose incidental M/SI determines a fishery's higher classification.

The tier analysis requires a minimum amount of data, and NMFS does not have sufficient data to perform a tier analysis on certain fisheries. Therefore, NMFS has classified certain fisheries by analogy to other fisheries that use similar fishing techniques or gear that are known to cause mortality or serious injury of marine mammals or according to factors discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063, December 28, 1995) and listed in the regulatory definition of Category II and III fisheries (50 CFR 229.2). In the absence of reliable information indicating the frequency of incidental M/SI of marine mammals by a commercial fishery, NMFS will determine the level of incidental mortality or serious injury by evaluating other factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fishermen reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries.

Further, eligible commercial fisheries not specifically identified on the LOF are deemed to be Category II fisheries until the next LOF is published (50 CFR 229.2).

The LOF includes a list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in each commercial fishery. The list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured includes serious and non-serious documented injuries as described below in the List of Species and/or Stocks Incidentally Killed or Injured in the Pacific Ocean and List of Species and/or Stocks Incidentally Killed or Injured in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of America, and Caribbean sections. To determine which species or stocks are included as incidentally killed or injured in a fishery, NMFS annually reviews the information presented in the current SARs and injury determination reports. SARs are brief reports summarizing the status of each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. Information includes the identity and geographic range of the stock, population statistics related to abundance, trend, and annual productivity, notable habitat concerns, and estimates of human-caused M/SI by source. The SARs are based upon the best available scientific information at the time of their publication and generally provide the most current and inclusive information on each stock's PBR level and level of interaction with commercial fishing operations. The best available scientific information used in the SARs and reviewed for the 2026 LOF generally summarizes data from 2017 through 2022. NMFS also reviews other sources of more recent information, including injury determination reports, bycatch estimation reports, observer data, logbook data, stranding data, disentanglement network data, fishermen self-reports ( i.e., MMPA mortality/injury reports), and anecdotal reports from that time period. In some cases, more recent information may be available outside of the SAR and used in the LOF because NMFS determined it was the best scientific information available.

For fisheries with observer coverage, species or stocks are generally removed from the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured if no interactions are documented in the 5-year timeframe summarized in that year's LOF. For fisheries with no observer coverage and for observed fisheries with evidence indicating that undocumented interactions may be occurring ( e.g., fishery has low observer coverage and stranding network data include evidence of fisheries interactions that cannot be attributed to a specific fishery), species and stocks may be retained for longer than 5 years. For these fisheries, NMFS will review the other sources of information listed above and use its discretion to decide when it is appropriate to remove a species or stock.

The best available information on the level of observer coverage and the spatial and temporal distribution of observed marine mammal interactions is typically presented in the SARs. Data obtained from the observer program and observer coverage levels are important tools in estimating the level of marine mammal M/SI in commercial fishing operations. Starting with the 2005 SARs, each Pacific and Alaska SAR includes an appendix with detailed descriptions of each Category I and II fishery on the LOF, including the observer coverage in those fisheries. The SARs do not provide detailed information on observer coverage in Category III fisheries because under the MMPA, Category III fisheries are not required to accommodate observers aboard vessels due to the remote likelihood of M/SI of marine mammals. Fishery information presented in the SARs' appendices and other resources referenced during the tier analysis may include the level of observer coverage, target species, levels of fishing effort, spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort, characteristics of fishing gear and operations, management and regulations, and interactions with marine mammals. The SARs are available on NMFS' website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region. Information on observer coverage levels in Category I, II, and III fisheries and detailed descriptions of each Category I and II fishery on the LOF can be found in the fishery fact sheets on NMFS' website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-mammal-protection/list-fisheries-summary-tables. Additional information on observer programs in commercial fisheries can be found on NMFS' website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/fisheries-observers/national-observer-program.

The LOF includes three tables that list all U.S. commercial fisheries by Category. Table 1 lists all of the commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska), table 2 lists all of the commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of America, and Caribbean, and table 3 lists all U.S. authorized commercial fisheries on the high seas. The full LOF tables are available on our website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/list-fisheries-summary-tables. A fourth table, table 4, lists all commercial fisheries managed under applicable TRPs or take reduction teams (TRT).

NMFS includes high seas fisheries in table 3 of the LOF along with the number of valid High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA) permits in each fishery. Many fisheries operate in both U.S. waters and on the high seas, creating some overlap between the fisheries listed in tables 1 and 2 and those in table 3. In these cases, the high seas component of the fishery is not considered a separate fishery but an extension of a fishery operating within U.S. waters (listed in table 1 or 2). NMFS designates those fisheries in tables 1, 2, and 3 with an asterisk (*) after the fishery's name. The number of HSFCA permits listed in table 3 for the high seas components of these fisheries operating in U.S. waters does not necessarily represent additional effort not accounted for in tables 1 and 2. Many vessels/participants holding HSFCA permits also fish within U.S. waters and are included in the number of vessels and participants operating within those fisheries in tables 1 and 2. For more information on how NMFS classifies high seas fisheries on the LOF, see the preamble text in the final 2009 LOF (73 FR 73032, December 1, 2008). Additional information about HSFCA permits can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/high-seas-fishing-permits.

Starting with the 2010 LOF, NMFS developed summary documents or fishery fact sheets for each Category I and II fishery on the LOF. These fishery fact sheets provide the full history of each Category I and II fishery, including: (1) when the fishery was added to the LOF; (2) the basis for the fishery's initial classification; (3) classification changes to the fishery; (4) changes to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the fishery; (5) fishery gear and methods used; (6) observer coverage levels; (7) fishery management and regulation; and (8) applicable TRPs or TRTs, if any. These fishery fact sheets are updated after each final LOF and can be found under “How Do I Find Out if a Specific Fishery is in Category I, II, or III?” on NMFS' website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-protection-act-list-fisheries, linked to the “List of Fisheries Summary” table. NMFS is developing similar fishery fact sheets for each Category III fishery on the LOF. However, due to the large number of Category III fisheries on the LOF and the lack of accessible and detailed information on many of these fisheries, the development of these fishery fact sheets is taking significant time to complete. NMFS began posting Category III fishery fact sheets online with the LOF for 2016.

Owners of vessels or gear engaging in a Category I or II fishery are required under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(2)), as described in 50 CFR 229.4, to register with NMFS and obtain a marine mammal authorization to lawfully take marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. The take of threatened or endangered marine mammals requires additional authorization. Owners of vessels or gear engaged in a Category III fishery are not required to register with NMFS or obtain a marine mammal authorization certificate.

NMFS has integrated the MMPA registration process, implemented through the MMAP, with existing state and Federal fishery license, registration, or permit systems for Category I and II fisheries on the LOF. Participants in these fisheries are automatically registered under the MMAP and are not required to submit registration or renewal materials.

In the Pacific Islands and Alaska regions, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate via U.S. mail or with their state or Federal license or permit at the time of issuance or renewal. In the Greater Atlantic, Southeast and West Coast Regions, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate electronically. The certificate can be downloaded and/or printed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-authorization-program#obtaining-a-marine-mammal-authorization-certificate. Printed copies can be mailed upon request by contacting nmfs.gar.mmapcert@noaa.gov or 978-281-9120 in the Greater Atlantic Region, nmfs.sero.mmap@noaa.gov or MMAP Hotline at 727-209-5952 in the Southeast Region, and meghan.roberts@noaa.gov in the West Coast Region.

Vessel or gear owners who participate in fisheries in these regions and have not received authorization certificates by the beginning of the calendar year or with renewed fishing licenses must contact the appropriate NMFS Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Authorization certificates may also be obtained by visiting the MMAP website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-authorization-program#obtaining-a-marine-mammal-authorization-certificate.

The authorization certificate or a copy (physical or electronic) must be on board the vessel while it is operating in a Category I or II fishery or for non-vessel fisheries, in the possession of the person in charge of the fishing operation (50 CFR 229.4(e)). Although efforts are made to limit the issuance of authorization certificates to only those vessel or gear owners that participate in Category I or II fisheries, not all state and Federal license or permit systems distinguish between fisheries as classified by the LOF. Therefore, some vessel or gear owners in Category III fisheries may receive authorization certificates even though they are not required for Category III fisheries.

Individuals fishing in Category I and II fisheries for which no state or Federal license or permit is required must register with NMFS by contacting their appropriate Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ).

In accordance with the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(e)) and 50 CFR 229.6, any vessel owner or operator or gear owner or operator (in the case of non-vessel fisheries) participating in a fishery listed on the LOF must report to NMFS all incidental mortalities and injuries of marine mammals that occur during commercial fishing operations, regardless of the category in which the fishery is placed ( i.e., Category I, Category II, or Category III) within 48 hours of the end of the fishing trip or, in the case of non-vessel fisheries, fishing activity. “Injury” is defined in 50 CFR 229.2 as a wound or other physical harm. In addition, any animal that ingests fishing gear or any animal that is released with fishing gear entangling, trailing, or perforating any part of the body is considered injured regardless of the presence of any wound or other evidence of injury and must be reported.

Mortality/injury reporting forms and instructions for submitting forms to NMFS can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-authorization-program#reporting-a-death-or-injury-of-a-marine-mammal-during-commercial-fishing-operations or by contacting the appropriate regional office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Forms may be submitted online using the electronic form, emailed as an attachment to nmfs.mireport@noaa.gov, faxed to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources at 301-713-0376, or mailed to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (mailing address is provided on the postage-paid form that can be printed from the web address listed above). Reporting requirements and procedures are found in 50 CFR 229.6.

Individuals participating in a Category I or II fishery are required to accommodate an observer aboard their vessel(s) upon request from NMFS. MMPA section 118 states that the Secretary is not required to place an observer on a vessel if the facilities for quartering an observer or performing observer functions are so inadequate or unsafe that the health or safety of the observer or the safe operation of the vessel would be jeopardized, thereby authorizing the exemption of vessels too small to safely accommodate an observer from this requirement. Observer requirements are found in 50 CFR 229.7.

Table 4 provides a LOF affected by TRPs and TRTs. TRP regulations are found at 50 CFR 229.30 through 229.37. A description of each TRT and copies of each TRP can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-take-reduction-plans-and-teams. It is the responsibility of fishery participants to comply with applicable take reduction regulations.

Information regarding the LOF and the MMAP including registration procedures and forms, current and past LOFs, descriptions of each Category I and II fishery and some Category III fisheries, observer requirements, and marine mammal mortality/injury reporting forms and submittal procedures may be obtained at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-protection-act-list-fisheries or from any NMFS Regional Office at the addresses listed below:

NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, Attn: Cheryl Cross;

NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: Jessica Powell;

NMFS, West Coast Region, Long Beach Office, 501 W Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, Attn: Meghan Roberts;

NMFS, Alaska Region, Protected Resources, P.O. Box 22668, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Suzie Teerlink; or

NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818, Attn: Charlotte Frank.

NMFS reviewed the marine mammal incidental M/SI information presented in the SARs for all fisheries to determine whether changes in fishery classification were warranted. The SARs are based on the best scientific information available at the time of preparation, including the level of M/SI of marine mammals that occurs incidental to commercial fishery operations and the PBR levels of marine mammal stocks. The information contained in the SARs is reviewed by regional Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) representing Alaska, the Pacific (including Hawaii), and the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of America, and Caribbean. The SRGs were established by the MMPA to review the science that informs the SARs and to advise NMFS on marine mammal population status, trends, and stock structure, as well as on uncertainties in the science, research needs, and other issues (see 16 U.S.C. 1386(d)).

NMFS also reviewed other sources of new information, including marine mammal stranding and entanglement data, injury determination reports, observer program data, fishermen self-reports, reports to the SRGs, conference papers, Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) documents.

The proposed changes to the LOF for 2026 are based on, among other things, stranding data, fishermen self-reports, and SARs (primarily the final 2023 SARs, which are based on data from 2017 through 2021, and final 2024 SARs, which are based on data from 2018 through 2022). The SARs referenced in this notice include 2022 (88 FR 54592, August 11, 2023), 2023 (89 FR 5495, January 29, 2024) and 2024 (90 FR 13344, March 21, 2025). The SARs are available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region. We expect that the 2024 SARs will be finalized before the 2026 changes to the LOF are published.

NMFS has withdrawn the proposed MMPA LOF for 2025 (89 FR 77789, Sept. 24, 2024) because it has determined the annual LOF has been historically misclassified as a “rule”. The annual LOF does not meet the definition of a “rule” under the Administrative Procedure Act (see 5 U.S.C. 551(4)) because it is not an agency statement designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy. Rather, the LOF announces the statutory and regulatory category ( i.e., frequent (Category I), occasional (Category II), or remote (Category III) incidental mortality and serious injury) each fishery belongs to based on the best available scientific information. At this time, the 2024 LOF (89 FR 12257, Feb. 16, 2024) remains in effect until the proposed changes to the LOF are finalized and is available on our website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/list-fisheries-summary-tables.

The following summarizes proposed changes to the LOF for 2026, including the classification of fisheries, fisheries listed, the estimated number of vessels/persons in a particular fishery, and the species and/or stocks that are incidentally killed or injured in a particular fishery. NMFS proposes to add two fisheries, remove one fishery and reclassify three fisheries in the LOF for 2026. NMFS also proposes changes to the estimated number of vessels/persons and list of species and/or stocks killed or injured in certain fisheries. The classifications and definitions of U.S. commercial fisheries for 2026 are identical to those provided in the LOF for 2024, except for the changes discussed below.

Pursuant to Executive Order 14172 (“Restoring Names to Honor American Greatness”) (January 20, 2025), the Gulf of Mexico is renamed as the Gulf of America. For purposes of the LOF, this proposed notice updates names and fishery descriptions of 19 fisheries consistent with the renaming of the Gulf. The name change does not result in any changes to, and has no effect on the applicability or enforceability of, any existing regulations. Marine Mammal stock names that include “Gulf of Mexico” will be revised to “Gulf of America” in a future LOF, consistent with the updates to the stock names in the SARs.

State and regional abbreviations used in the following paragraphs include: AI (Aleutian Islands), AK (Alaska), BS (Bering Sea), CA (California), FL (Florida), GA (Georgia), GOA (Gulf of Alaska), HI (Hawaii), MA (Massachusetts), NC (North Carolina), OR (Oregon), SC (South Carolina) and WA (Washington).

NMFS proposes to reclassify the Category I CA Dungeness crab pot fishery to a Category II fishery. The most recent estimate of annual M/SI of the Central America/Southern Mexico—CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales from 2018 through 2022 is 1.25, which is 35.7 percent of this stock's PBR of 3.5 (Carretta et al., 2024a; Carretta et al., 2024b). Because the estimated M/SI is between 1 and 50 percent of the stock's PBR, NMFS proposes to reclassify the CA Dungeness crab pot fishery from a Category I to a Category II fishery.

NMFS proposes to reclassify the Category II HI shallow-set longline fishery to a Category III fishery. The Category II classification of this fishery was based on the mean annual estimated M/SI of the Hawaii pelagic stock of false killer whales. The mean annual estimated M/SI of the Hawaii pelagic stock of false killer whales from 2017 through 2021 is 0.2, which is 0.56 percent of the stock's PBR (36 whales) (Carretta et al., 2024b). Because the estimated M/SI is less than 1 percent of the stock's PBR, NMFS proposes to reclassify the HI shallow-set longline fishery from a Category II to a Category III fishery.

There are several fisheries on the LOF for which a portion of the fishing vessels cross the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary and therefore, operate both within U.S. waters and on the high seas. These fisheries, though listed separately, are considered the same fisheries on either side of the EEZ boundary. The Category II Western Pacific Pelagic longline fishery (HI shallow-set component) is the corresponding high seas component of the HI shallow-set longline fishery. Therefore, NMFS proposes to also reclassify the corresponding high seas component Category II Western Pacific Pelagic longline fishery (HI shallow-set component) to a Category III fishery.

NMFS proposes to add the CA deep-set buoy gear fishery as a Category III fishery. The fishery operates in federal waters along the U.S. West Coast from the U.S./Mexico border to the WA/OR boundary line. The fishery targets swordfish and bluefin tuna and has 25 participants.

The CA deep-set buoy gear fishery is a year-round fishery with most effort occurring during the late summer, fall, and winter months. Effort is based on fish availability, which can highly fluctuate during El Niño and La Niña years. To date, the majority of effort has occurred in federal waters in the Southern California Bight around the Channel Islands. Effort seldom extends farther than 30 nautical miles (nm) (55.56 kilometers (km)) offshore and vessels are required to stay beyond state boundary lines, 3 nm (5.56 km) from the mainland and 1 nm (1.852 km) from Channel Islands. Some vessels may fish within state waters for exploratory purposes. Most fishing occurs during the day, but a limited number of vessels are approved to fish at night for exploratory purposes. Additionally, fishing using the linked buoy gear configuration (described below) is prohibited in depths shallower than 400 meters (m).

Deep-set buoy gear employs a hook and line system where a floatation device is deployed on the surface from which a single weighted line hangs with baited hooks attached. The gear can be fished in two distinct configurations, standard deep-set buoy gear and linked deep-set buoy gear, both of which must be actively tended. Standard buoy gear and linked buoy gear can be fished at the same time so long as no more than 10 pieces of gear are deployed at any 1 time.

Standard buoy gear: An individual piece (section) of standard buoy gear consists of a vertical monofilament mainline suspended from a buoy-array of three buoys with a terminal weight. This typically includes one 46-pound non-compressible float, one soft buoy, and one hard bullet indicator buoy, which is connected directly to a monofilament vertical mainline (typically 300 m long and 2.8-3.5 millimeters thick) attached to a minimum 8 pound (3.6 kg) weight at the bottom. Up to three gangions with baited hooks may be attached to the mainline at a minimum depth of 90 m. An illumination source ( e.g., cyalume or power light) may be used near each gangion, if desired. All gear must remain within a radius of no more than 5 nm (9.26 km) and the vessel may be no more than 3 nm (5.56 kilometers) from the nearest piece of gear.

Linked buoy gear: An individual piece (section) of linked buoy gear consists of a monofilament mainline which extends vertically from a buoy-array (either directly or from a minimum 50-foot extender) to a weight; then horizontally to a second weight; then vertically to a minimum 50-foot extender attached to a second buoy-array. Up to three gangions with hooks may be connected to each horizontal section of the mainline, all of which must be fished below 90 meters. The pieces may be linked together by the mainline, which is serviceable between each piece of linked buoy gear and must be suspended between links below a depth of 50 feet.

The Federal deep-set buoy gear fishery is managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council under the Fishery Management Plan for West Coast Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fisheries. State-based exploratory fishing is managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The Federal fishery currently consists of two permit types. Limited entry permits are required to fish deep-set buoy gear south of Point Conception while deep-set buoy gear is permitted on an open access basis north of Point Conception for any vessels with a General HMS permit and deep-set buoy gear endorsement. All West Coast vessels targeting HMS species require a Federal HMS permit, a CDFW swordfish permit in order to land swordfish in California, and a deep-set buoy gear limited entry permit to fish deep-set buoy gear south of Point Conception. Under the current, authorized fishery, operators are required to submit pre-trip notifications to NMFS before fishing, and NMFS places observers aboard deep-set buoy gear boats at its discretion (subject to available funding and Agency priorities).

NMFS proposes to add the CA deep-set buoy gear fishery as a Category III fishery based on observed bycatch of four Northern elephant seals between 2015 and 2019 (NMFS 2023a). All four seals were released alive and injury determinations were not conducted for the events. The most recent estimate of total annual fishery M/SI of the CA breeding stock of elephant seal is 6.8 and PBR is 5,328 (Carretta et al., 2026), which is 0.1 percent of the stock's PBR. Because injury determinations were not conducted for the four elephant seals released alive, the injuries are not counted against PBR in the 2024 SAR. However, if the injuries were determined to be serious, the addition of these four injuries total annual fishery M/SI would continue to be less than one percent of PBR. Therefore, using the Tier 1 analysis, NMFS proposes to classify the CA deep-set buoy gear fishery as a Category III fishery because total annual M/SI of the CA breeding stock of Northern elephant seals across all fisheries is less than or equal to 10 percent of the stock's PBR. NMFS also proposes to add the CA breeding stock of elephant seal to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in this fishery.

NMFS proposes to revise the fishery description for the Category III West Coast pelagic longline fishery as follows. The West Coast pelagic longline fishery targets bigeye, yellowfin, Pacific bluefin, and skipjack tuna along with opah and other HMS in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Fishing occurs primarily outside of the U.S. EEZ (3 to 200 nm (5.6-370.4 km) off the coast) unless such activities are approved to occur in federal waters for exploratory purposes. The offshore fishery generally extends south to 20° north latitude and west to 140° west longitude and commonly targets bigeye tuna at depths from anywhere between 250 and 400 meters (820.2-1312.3 ft) during the daytime. Nearer to shore fishing activities target swordfish at night at depths below 30 m and typically target swordfish, tunas and other marketable HMS at depths below 100 meters during the day.

Gear consists of a monofilament main line approximately 3.2-3.5 mm (0.1 inch (in)) thick that is set, retrieved and stored on large hydraulic reels, except when using braided line with basket gear. The length of the mainline varies with the number of hooks set (from 150 to 2,500+). Fewer hooks are set on configurations fished nearshore and within federal waters than in sets occurring on the high seas. The horizontal mainline is suspended at the target fishing depth by inflatable floats attached via float lines made of monofilament or braided line. Part of the array used to suspend the mainline includes radio buoys, used to show the location and footprint of the gear on the radar of the fishing vessel. Attached to the mainline are monofilament branch lines (usually 5-30 between each float, depending on the configuration), and vary in length to reach target depths. These lines culminate in a swivel weight from which a leader line extends to a large hook (typically an offset circle hook larger than 14/0). Bait used in these fisheries consists of mackerel-type fish, squid, or artificial baits.

The fishery is managed under the HMS FMP by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. All U.S. West Coast vessels targeting tunas require a Federal HMS permit and registration with the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). Use of either shallow-set or deep-set pelagic longline gear within the U.S. EEZ of the U.S. West Coast is prohibited unless such activities are approved to occur in Federal waters for exploratory purposes. The HMS FMP does not permit shallow-set longline fishing, although shallow-set longline vessels fishing under a Hawaii longline permit (under the Pelagics FMP) do make landings into California. Use of a vessel monitoring system, attendance at protected species workshops, and the possession/use of sea turtle, seabird, marine mammal and shark mitigation gear and safe handling techniques are required.

The IATTC specifies trip limits (for certain vessel classes/sizes) and yearly catch limits each year for all tuna species in the Convention Area. Federal logbooks are required for all authorized fisheries targeting HMS. Observers are required but the level of coverage varies depending on monitoring needs and funding availability.

NMFS proposes to clarify the fishery description for the Category II WA/OR/CA sablefish pot fishery to specify that this fishery operates in both state and federal waters.

NMFS proposes to remove the Category III HI aquarium collecting fishery from the LOF. There are no participants in the fishery and commercial aquarium fishing is inactive in Hawaii.

NMFS proposes to add the superscript “1” to the Central America/Southern Mexico—CA/OR/WA stocks of humpback whale to indicate that M/SI of the stock is determining the Category II classification of the CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in mesh) fishery. NMFS also proposes to remove the superscript “1” from the CA/OR/WA stocks of short-finned pilot whale and sperm whale to indicate that M/SI of the stocks are no longer determining the Category II classification of the CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in mesh) fishery.

NMFS proposes to add the superscript “1” to the Eastern North Pacific stock of blue whale and Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whale to indicate that M/SI of the stocks are determining the Category II classification of the CA Dungeness crab pot fishery.

NMFS proposes to add the superscript “1” to the Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whale to indicate that M/SI of the stock is determining the Category II classification of the OR Dungeness crab pot fishery.

NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of vessels/persons in the Pacific Ocean as follows:

• HI deep-set longline fishery from 146 to 147 vessels/persons.

• CA Dungeness crab pot fishery from 471 to 469 vessels/persons;

• CA halibut/white seabass and other species set gillnet (>3.5 in mesh) fishery from 39 to 41 vessels/persons;

• CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet (mesh size >3.5 in and <14 in) fishery from 20 to 6 vessels/persons;

• AK Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet fishery from 1,521 to 1,512 vessels/persons;

• AK Bristol Bay salmon set gillnet fishery from 855 to 847 vessels/persons;

• AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet fishery from 128 to 130 vessels/persons;

• AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet fishery from 479 to 301 vessels/persons;

• AK Cook Inlet salmon drift gillnet fishery from 355 to 350 vessels/persons;

• AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon drift gillnet from 148 to 145 vessels/persons;

• AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon set gillnet fishery from 75 to 65 vessels/persons;

• AK Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet fishery from 483 to 449 vessels/persons;

• AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet fishery from 95 to 75 vessels/persons;

• WA Puget Sound Region salmon drift gillnet (includes all inland waters south of US-Canada border and eastward of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line—Treaty Indian fishing is excluded) fishery from 136 to 137 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl from 29 to 26 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl from 116 to 108 vessels/persons;

• CA spiny lobster fishery from 189 to 174 vessels/persons;

• CA spot prawn pot fishery from 22 to 20 vessels/persons;

• OR Dungeness crab pot fishery from 323 to 352 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA sablefish pot fishery from 144 to 122 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline fishery from 177 to 141 vessels/persons; and

• HI shortline fishery from 8 to 11 vessels/persons.

• AK Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, Kotzebue salmon gillnet fishery from 360 to 155 vessels/persons;

• AK Prince William Sound salmon set gillnet fishery from 25 to 24 vessels/persons;

• AK roe herring and food/bait herring gillnet fishery from 15 to 8 vessels/persons;

• CA herring set gillnet fishery from 11 to 9 vessels/persons;

• HI inshore gillnet fishery from 26 to 27 vessels/persons;

• WA Grays Harbor salmon drift gillnet (excluding treaty Tribal fishing) fishery from 19 to 20 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR Mainstem Columbia River eulachon gillnet fishery from 10 to 8 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR lower Columbia River (includes tributaries) drift net fishery from 244 to 181 vessels/persons;

• WA Willapa Bay drift gillnet fishery from 57 to 47 vessels/persons;

• AK Cook Inlet salmon purse seine fishery from 16 to 11 vessels/persons;

• AK Kodiak salmon purse seine fishery from 159 to 167 vessels/persons;

• AK Southeast salmon purse seine fishery from 206 to 204 vessels/persons;

• AK roe herring and food/bait herring purse seine fishery from 31 to 51 vessels/persons;

• AK salmon purse seine (Prince William Sound, Chignik, Alaska Peninsula) fishery from 298 to 316 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR sardine purse seine fishery from six to zero vessels/persons;

• CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine fishery from 53 to 59 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR Lower Columbia River salmon seine fishery from one to zero vessels/persons;

• WA/OR herring, anchovy, smelt, squid purse seine or lampara fishery from 41 to 48 vessels/persons;

• HI lift net fishery from 14 to 16 vessels/persons;

• HI inshore purse seine from none recorded to less than three;

• HI throw net, cast net fishery from 13 to 21 vessels/persons;

• HI seine net fishery from 17 to 15 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA albacore surface hook and line/troll fishery from 556 to 540 vessels/persons;

• CA halibut, white seabass, and yellowtail hook and line/handline fishery from 388 to 435 vessels/persons;

• AK salmon troll fishery from 850 to 754 vessels/persons;

• American Samoa tuna troll fishery from six to nine vessels/persons;

• CA/OR/WA salmon troll fishery from 1,030 to 808 vessels/persons;

• HI troll fishery from 1,124 to 1,038 vessels/persons;

• HI rod and reel fishery from 235 to 161 vessels/persons;

• Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands tuna troll fishery from 9 to 34;

• Guam tuna troll fishery from 450 to 449 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot longline fishery from four to zero vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod longline fishery from 26 to 22 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands sablefish longline fishery from 18 to 11 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands halibut longline fishery from 84 to 72 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska halibut longline fishery from 689 to 671 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod longline fishery from 23 to 42 vessels/persons;

• AK octopus/squid longline fishery from zero to one vessels/persons;

• West Coast pelagic longline fishery from four to eight vessels/persons;

• HI shallow-set longline fishery from 14 to 22 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA groundfish, bottomfish longline/set line fishery from 314 to 296 vessels/persons;

• HI kaka line fishery from 17 to 8 vessels/persons;

• HI vertical line fishery from six to three vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod trawl fishery from 64 to 65 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish trawl fishery from 22 to 18 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl fishery from 16 to 9 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod trawl fishery from 12 to 31 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl fishery from 60 to 53 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish trawl fishery from 35 to 30 vessels/persons;

• AK shrimp otter trawl and beam trawl fishery from 12 to 8 vessels/persons;

• CA halibut bottom trawl fishery from 23 to 21 vessels/persons;

• CA sea cucumber trawl fishery from 11 to 9 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA shrimp trawl fishery from 130 to 114 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA groundfish trawl fishery from 118 to 104 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod pot fishery from 80 to 56 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands sablefish pot fishery from 15 to 29 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific crab pot fishery from 73 to 88 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska crab pot fishery from 186 to 189 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod pot fishery from 48 to 69 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish pot fishery from 129 to 181 vessels/persons;

• AK Southeast Alaska crab pot fishery from 375 to 259 vessels/persons;

• AK Southeast Alaska shrimp pot fishery from 104 to 101 vessels/persons;

• AK shrimp pot, except Southeast fishery from 77 to 72 vessels/persons;

• CA Tanner crab pot fishery from one to two vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA hagfish pot fishery from 63 to 47 vessels/persons;

• WA Puget Sound Dungeness crab pot/trap fishery from 145 to 139 vessels/persons;

• HI crab trap from four to three vessels/persons;

• HI shrimp trap from three to less than three vessels/persons;

• HI crab net fishery from four to less than three vessels/persons;

• HI Kona crab loop net fishery from 13 to 24 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands groundfish jig fishery from two to one vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska groundfish jig fishery from 68 to 76 vessels/persons;

• AK halibut jig fishery from five to four vessels/persons;

• American Samoa bottomfish fishery from 44 to 6 vessels/persons;

• Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands bottomfish fishery from 7 to 29 vessels/persons;

• Guam bottomfish fishery from 63 to 55 vessels/persons;

• HI bottomfish handline fishery from 392 to 344 vessels/persons;

• HI inshore handline fishery from 158 to 118 vessels/persons;

• HI pelagic handline from 271 to 251 vessels/persons;

• CA swordfish harpoon fishery from 21 to 17 vessels/persons;

• AK herring spawn on kelp pound net fishery from 143 to 99 vessels/persons;

• AK clam fishery from 57 to 60 vessels/persons;

• AK miscellaneous invertebrates handpick fishery from 188 to 165 vessels/persons;

• CA/OR/WA dive collection fishery from 186 to 149 vessels/persons;

• HI black coral diving fishery from none recorded to less than three;

• HI handpick fishery from 25 to 11 vessels/persons;

• HI lobster diving fishery from 12 to 8 vessels/persons;

• HI spearfishing fishery from 67 to 49 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA hand/mechanical collection fishery from 320 to 422 vessels/persons; and

• CA nearshore finfish trap fishery from 42 to 43 vessels/persons.

NMFS proposes to correct an administrative error for the Category III WA/OR/CA groundfish/finfish hook and line fishery. Based on public comment, NMFS added the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stocks of humpback whale to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in this fishery in the final 2024 LOF (89 FR 12257, February 16, 2024) based on a 2021 humpback whale entanglement (Carretta et al., 2023a). Upon further review of the entanglement report, NMFS determined the 2021 humpback whale entanglement was not a confirmed entanglement. Because the entanglement was not confirmed, following NMFS' Process for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals, an injury determination was not conducted for this event (NMFS 2023). Therefore, NMFS proposes to remove the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stocks of humpback whale from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III WA/OR/CA groundfish/finfish hook and line fishery.

NMFS proposes to add Guadalupe fur seals to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in mesh) fishery based on an observed mortality in 2023 (Carretta 2024).

NMFS proposes to add the CA/OR/WA stock of minke whale to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II OR Dungeness crab pot fishery. In 2021, a minke whale was reported entangled in OR Dungeness crab pot gear off the coast of San Diego, CA, with line bridled through the mouth and trailing buoys (Carretta et al., 2024a).

NMFS proposes to add three stocks to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod longline fishery. NMFS proposes to add the Beringia stock of bearded seal based on an observed mortality in 2021 (Freed et al., 2023). NMFS also proposes to add both the Eastern North Pacific Alaska resident and GOA, AI, BS transient stocks of killer whales based on an observed mortality in 2022 (Brower et al., 2024). The mortality was assigned to the Eastern North Pacific Alaska resident and GOA, AI, BS transient stocks of killer whales because the stock is unknown and these two stocks overlap in the area where the mortality occurred.

NMFS proposes to add one stock and remove two stocks from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery. NMFS proposes to add the Eastern North Pacific Alaska resident stock of killer whales based on a self-reported mortality in 2021 (Brower et al., 2024). NMFS proposes to remove both the Arctic stock of ringed seal and ribbon seal because this fishery has 100 percent observer coverage and there were no reported or observed M/SI of ribbon or ringed seals in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery from 2018 to 2022 (Brower et al., 2024).

NMFS proposes to add the Hawai'i, Mexico-North Pacific, and Western North Pacific stocks of humpback whales to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands sablefish longline fishery based on a serious injury in 2022 (Brower et al., 2024). The serious injury was assigned to the three humpback whale stocks because the stock is unknown and these three stocks overlap in the area where the serious injury occurred.

NMFS proposes to add the unknown stock of beaked whale to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III HI shallow-set longline fishery based on an observed serious injury in 2021 (McCracken and Cooper 2022).

NMFS proposes to add the Arctic stock of ringed seal to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod trawl fishery based on an observed mortality in 2021 (Brower et al., 2024). NMFS also proposes to remove the Alaska stock of bearded seal and ribbon seal from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the fishery. Observer coverage for this fishery is between 67 and 80 percent, and from 2016-2022 there have been no reported or observed M/SI of these stocks in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod trawl fishery (Freed et al., 2023 and Brower et al., 2024).

NMFS proposes to add the Pribilof Islands stock of harbor seal to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod pot fishery based on a self-reported mortality in 2022 (Brower et al., 2024). NMFS also proposes to remove the Bristol Bay stock of harbor seal from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod pot fishery. Observer coverage for this fishery is between 9.7 and 35 percent and from 2018 through 2022 there were no reported or observed M/SI of this stock in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod pot fishery (Young et al., 2026).

NMFS proposes to remove four stocks from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery: (1) Bering Sea stock of harbor porpoise, (2) Western North Pacific stock of humpback whale, (3) Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale and (4) ribbon seal. This fishery has 100 percent observer coverage, and from 2016 through 2022, there were no reported or observed M/SI of these four stocks in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery (Brower et al., 2024, Freed et al., 2023 and Young et al., 2023).

NMFS proposes to remove the GOA, AI, BS transient stock of killer whale from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot longline fishery. Observer coverage is between 52 and 62 percent when the fishery is active, and from 2018 through 2020, there were no reported or observed M/SI of this stock in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot longline fishery (Brower et al., 2024). More recently, in 2021-2022, there has been zero participation in this fishery. The list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in this fishery is proposed to be updated to state that none have been documented in the most recent 5 years of data.

NMFS proposes to remove the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lion from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod longline fishery. Observer coverage for this fishery is between 0 and 39 percent, and from 2017 through 2021, there were no reported or observed M/SI of this stock in the AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod longline fishery (Young et al., 2024).

NMFS proposes to remove the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lion from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod trawl fishery. Observer coverage for this fishery is between 11 and 100 percent, and from 2017 through 2021 there were no reported or observed M/SI of this stock in the AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod trawl fishery (Young et al., 2024). The list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in this fishery is proposed to be updated to state that none have been documented in the most recent 5 years of data.

NMFS proposes to remove the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lion from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish trawl fishery. Observer coverage for this fishery is between 94 and 96 percent, and from 2018 through 2022 there were no reported or observed M/SI of this stock in the AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish trawl fishery (Young et al., 2024 and Young et al., 2026). The list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in this fishery is proposed to be updated to state that none have been documented in the most recent 5 years of data.

NMFS proposes to remove the Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait stock of harbor seal from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl fishery. Observer coverage for this fishery is between 35 and 94 percent, and from 2018 through 2022 there were no reported or observed M/SI of this stock in the AK Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl (Brower et al., 2024).

NMFS proposes to remove ribbon seal from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish trawl fishery. Observer coverage for this fishery is between 95 and 96 percent, and from 2018 through 2022, there were no reported or observed M/SI of this stock in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish trawl fishery (Brower et al., 2024).

NMFS proposes to add the Massachusetts (MA) green crab pot fishery as a Category III fishery. This fishery is managed by the state of Massachusetts. It operates entirely in shallow (4 to 15 feet (1.22 to 4.57 m), inshore Massachusetts state waters in estuaries, harbors, tidal creeks and salt marshes from April to November and targets green crab ( Carcinus maenas ). This fishery uses wire mesh pots that are discernible from other crab pot gear because the pots have a top entry design and are often homemade. Because the green crab is an invasive species, permits are not required to participate in the fishery; however, letters of authorization are currently issued to 78 commercial participants.

This fishery has been operating and regulated in Massachusetts for over 60 years (Annotated Laws of Massachusetts, GL ch. 130, section 37A, 2024) and there have been no documented marine mammal M/SI incidental to this fishery. Therefore, NMFS proposes to classify the MA green crab pot fishery as a Category III fishery with no marine mammal species/stocks identified as incidentally killed or injured in the fishery.

Consistent with Executive Order 14172 (Restoring Names to Honor American Greatness), for purposes of the LOF, this proposed notice updates the following fishery names and associated fishery descriptions to reflect the renaming of the “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America”.

• Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline to Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of America large pelagics longline.

• Gulf of Mexico gillnet to Gulf of America gillnet;

• Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl to Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of America shrimp trawl;

• Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico stone crab trap/pot to Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of America stone crab trap/pot; and

• Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine to Gulf of America menhaden purse seine.

• Gulf of Mexico butterfish trawl to Gulf of America butterfish trawl;

• Gulf of Mexico mixed species trawl to Gulf of America mixed species trawl;

• Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean snapper-grouper and other reef fish bottom longline/hook-and-line to Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of America, and Caribbean snapper-grouper and other reef fish bottom longline/hook-and-line;

• Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shark bottom longline/hook-and-line to Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of America shark bottom longline/hook-and-line;

• Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean pelagic hook-and-line/harpoon to Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of America, and Caribbean pelagic hook-and-line/harpoon;

• U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico trotline to U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of America trotline;

• Gulf of Mexico blue crab trap/pot to Gulf of America blue crab trap/pot;

• Gulf of Mexico mixed species trap/pot to Gulf of America mixed species trap/pot;

• Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico golden crab trap/pot to Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of America golden crab trap/pot;

• U.S. Mid-Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico oyster dredge to U.S. Mid-Atlantic/Gulf of America oyster dredge;

• Gulf of Mexico haul/beach seine to Gulf of America haul/beach seine;

• Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean shellfish dive, hand/mechanical collection to Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of America, Caribbean shellfish dive, hand/mechanical collection;

• Gulf of Mexico, Southeast Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and Caribbean cast net to Gulf of America, Southeast Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and Caribbean cast net; and

• Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean commercial passenger fishing vessel to Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of America, Caribbean commercial passenger fishing vessel.

NMFS proposes to add the superscript “1” to the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whale to indicate that M/SI of the stock is determining the Category II classification of the Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet fishery.

NMFS proposes to add the superscript “1” to the Western North Atlantic stock of common dolphin to indicate that M/SI of the stock is determining the Category II classification of the Northeast bottom trawl fishery. NMFS also proposes to remove the superscript “1” from the Western North Atlantic stock of Risso's dolphin to indicate that M/SI of the stock is no longer determining the Category II classification of the Northeast bottom trawl fishery.

NMFS proposes to add the superscript “1” to the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whale and Canadian East coast stock of minke whale to indicate that M/SI of these stocks are determining the Category II classification of the MA mixed species trap/pot fishery.

NMFS proposes to remove the superscript “2” from the Category II Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery to indicate this fishery is not classified by analogy to other Category II trap/pot fisheries. Instead, NMFS proposes to add the superscript “1” to the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whale to indicate that M/SI of the stock is determining the Category II classification of the Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery (Henry et al., 2023).

NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of vessels/persons in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of America, and Caribbean (Table 2) as follows:

• MA mixed species trap/pot fishery from 1,240 to 2,915 vessels/persons;

• Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of America stone crab trap/pot fishery from 1,101 to 816 vessels/persons;

• Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery from 3,493 to 1,813 vessels/persons;

• NC inshore gillnet fishery from 1,157 to 1,005 vessels/persons;

• NC long haul seine fishery from 10 to 26 vessels/persons; and

• NC roe mullet stop net fishery from one to three vessels/persons.

NMFS proposes to add the Gulf of Maine, Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I Northeast/mid- Atlantic American lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fishery based on a self-reported mortality in 2023.

NMFS proposes to add the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whale and Canadian East Coast stock of minke whale to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Chesapeake Bay inshore gillnet fishery. In January 2020, a dead humpback whale was reported in Virginia heavily entangled in gillnet gear (Henry et al., 2023). Also in February 2020, a minke whale was reported in Virginia entangled in gillnet gear resulting in a mortality (Hayes et al., 2024).

NMFS proposes to add the Western North Atlantic stock of white-sided dolphin to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) fishery based on a self-reported mortality in 2020.

NMFS proposes to add the Western North Atlantic stock of Globicephala spp. (long-finned or short-finned pilot whale) to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fishery based on an observed injury in 2021 (Precoda and Lyssikatos 2023).

NMFS proposes to add the Northern Georgia/Southern South Carolina estuarine system stock of bottlenose dolphin to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of America shrimp trawl fishery based on a self-reported injury in 2023. Based on the location of the self-report, this take was assigned to only this stock ( i.e., there are no overlapping stocks at this location).

NMFS proposes to add the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whale and the Canadian East coast stock of minke whale to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II MA mixed species trap/pot fishery. In June 2020, a humpback whale was reported entangled off Chatham, MA. The whale was partially disentangled and determined to be a serious injury, prorated to 0.75 (Henry et al., 2023). In June 2022, a minke whale was entangled in lobster pot gear set in MA state waters (Moise et al., 2025)

NMFS proposes to remove the Western North Atlantic stock of hooded seal from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery. This fishery was observed between 1 and 13 percent from 2017 through 2021 and there were no reported or observed M/SI of this stock in this fishery.

NMFS proposes to remove the Central Florida coastal and Northern Florida coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphin from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Southeast Atlantic gillnet fishery. This fishery is observed and there have been no reported or observed M/SI of these stocks in this fishery in over 5 years (Hayes et al., 2026). The fishery was observed at a range of 0.6 to 5.8 percent (mean of 2.9 percent) from 2020 through 2024. The list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in this fishery is proposed to be updated to state that none documented in the most recent 5 years of data.

NMFS proposes to remove six stocks from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of America large pelagics longline fishery. The six stocks are (1) Western North Atlantic stock of false killer whale; (2) Gulf of Maine, Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise; (3) Canadian East coast stock of minke whale; (4) Gulf of Mexico stock of pygmy sperm whale; (5) Northern Gulf of Mexico stock of Risso's dolphin; and (6) Northern Gulf of Mexico stock of sperm whale. This fishery was observed between 8.7 and 13.3 percent from 2017 through 2021 and there were no reported or observed M/SI of these stocks in this fishery (Hayes et al., 2024; Garrison and Stokes 2023).

NMFS proposes to remove the unknown stock (Central FL, Northern FL, SC/GA Coastal or Southern Migratory Coastal) of bottlenose dolphin from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery. This fishery was observed between 5 and 8 percent from 2018 through 2022, and there were no reported or observed M/SI of this stock in the fishery (Hayes et al., 2026).

NMFS proposes to remove the Western North Atlantic stock of short-finned pilot whales from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of America, Caribbean commercial passenger fishing vessel fishery. From 2017 through 2021, there were no reported M/SI of these stocks in this fishery (Hayes et al., 2024).

As described in the Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean section, NMFS proposes to reclassify the Category II Western Pacific Pelagic longline fishery (HI shallow-set component) to a Category III fishery.

NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of HSFCA permits for high seas fisheries as follows:

• Atlantic Highly Migratory Species longline fishery from 30 to 36 HSFCA permits; and

• Western Pacific Pelagic (HI deep-set component) longline fishery from 146 to 147 HSFCA permits.

• Western and Central Pacific Ocean tuna purse seine fishery from 14 to 12 HSFCA permits;

• South Pacific albacore troll longline fishery from six to five HSFCA permits;

• Pacific highly migratory species handline/pole and line fishery from 36 to 37 HSFCA permits;

• South Pacific albacore troll handline/pole and line fishery from one to two HSFCA permits;

• South Pacific albacore troll fishery from 23 to 22 HSFCA permits; and

• Western Pacific Pelagic troll fishery from six to five HSFCA permits.

• Northwest Atlantic bottom longline fishery from one to zero HSFCA permits;

• Pacific highly migratory species longline fishery from 119 to 97 HSFCA permits;

• Western Pacific Pelagic longline (HI Shallow-set component) fishery from 14 to 22 HSFCA permits; and

• Northwest Atlantic trawl fishery from one to zero HSFCA permits.

NMFS proposes to remove three stocks from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I Atlantic Highly Migratory Species longline fishery: (1) Western North Atlantic stock of false killer whale, (2) Canadian East coast stock of minke whale and (3) Gulf of Mexico stock of Risso's dolphin. The list of marine mammal species and/or stocks killed or injured in this fishery is identical to the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks killed or injured in the U.S. waters component of the fishery minus species and/or stocks that have geographic ranges exclusively in coastal waters.

NMFS proposes to update the humpback whale stocks on the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Pacific highly migratory species drift gillnet fishery from humpback whale, CA/OR/WA to humpback whale, Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and humpback whale, Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock based on the revised stock structure in the 2022 SAR (Carretta et al., 2023).

NMFS also proposes to add Guadalupe fur seal to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Pacific highly migratory species drift gillnet fishery based on an observed mortality in 2023 (Carretta 2024). The list of marine mammal species and/or stocks killed or injured in this fishery is identical to the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks killed or injured in the U.S. waters component of the fishery minus species and/or stocks that have geographic ranges exclusively in coastal waters.

NMFS proposes to add the unknown stock of beaked whale to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III Western Pacific Pelagic longline fishery (HI shallow-set component) based on an observed serious injury in 2021 (McCracken and Cooper, 2022). The list of marine mammal species and/or stocks killed or injured in this fishery is identical to the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks killed or injured in the U.S. waters component of the fishery minus species and/or stocks that have geographic ranges exclusively in coastal waters.

The following tables set forth the proposed changes to the list of U.S. commercial fisheries according to their classification under section 118 of the MMPA. Table 1 lists proposed changes for commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska); table 2 lists proposed changes for commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of America, and Caribbean; table 3 lists proposed changes for commercial fisheries on the high seas; and table 4 lists fisheries affected by TRPs or TRTs.

In tables 1 and 2 of the LOF, the estimated number of vessels or persons participating in fisheries operating within U.S. waters is expressed in terms of the number of active participants in the fishery, when possible. If this information is not available, the estimated number of vessels or persons licensed for a particular fishery is provided. If no recent information is available on the number of participants, vessels, or persons licensed in a fishery, then the number from the most recent LOF is used for the estimated number of vessels or persons in the fishery. NMFS acknowledges that, in some cases, these estimates may be inflations of actual effort. For example, the State of Hawaii does not issue fishery-specific licenses, and the number of participants reported in the LOF represents the number of commercial marine license holders who reported using a particular fishing gear type/method at least once in a given year without considering how many times the gear was used. For these fisheries, effort by a single participant is counted the same whether the fisherman used the gear only once or every day. In the Mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries, the numbers represent the potential effort for each fishery, given the multiple gear types for which several state permits may allow. Changes made to Mid-Atlantic and New England fishery participants will not affect observer coverage or bycatch estimates as observer coverage and bycatch estimates are based on vessel trip reports and landings data. The LOF provides a description of the fishery's potential effort (state and Federal). If NMFS is able to gather more accurate information on the gear types used by state permit holders in the future, the numbers will be updated to reflect this change. For additional information on fishing effort in fisheries found on the LOF, contact the relevant regional office (contact information included above in the section:

For high seas fisheries, table 3 of the LOF lists the number of valid HSFCA permits currently held. Although this likely overestimates the number of active participants in many of these fisheries, the number of valid HSFCA permits is the most reliable data on the potential effort in high seas fisheries at this time. As noted previously, the number of HSFCA permits listed on the LOF for the high seas components of fisheries that also operate within U.S. waters does not necessarily represent additional effort beyond that in U.S. waters because many vessels holding HSFCA permits fish both within and outside U.S. waters and so may be counted twice. Fisheries that operate both within and outside of the U.S. EEZ boundary are denoted in the tables below with an asterisk (*) after the fisheries' names.

Tables 1, 2, and 3 below also list proposed changes to the marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured (seriously or non-seriously) in each fishery based on SARs, injury determination reports, bycatch estimation reports, observer data, logbook data, stranding data, disentanglement network data, fishermen self-reports ( i.e., MMAP reports), and anecdotal reports. The best available scientific information included in these reports is based on data through 2022. In tables 1 and 2 below, NMFS has designated the species/stocks for which M/SI are determining a fishery's classification ( i.e., the fishery is classified based on mortalities and serious injuries of a marine mammal stock that are greater than or equal to 50 percent (Category I) or greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent (Category II) of a stock's PBR) by including a superscript “1” after the stock's name.

In tables 1 and 2 below, there are several fisheries classified as Category II that have no recent documented M/SI of marine mammals or fisheries that did not result in a M/SI rate greater than 1 percent of a stock's PBR level based on known dead or seriously injured marine mammals. NMFS has classified these fisheries by analogy to other Category I or II fisheries that use similar fishing techniques or gear that are known to cause M/SI of marine mammals, as discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063, December 28, 1995) and according to factors listed in the definition of Category II and III fisheries in 50 CFR 229.2 ( i.e., fishing techniques, gear types, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fishermen reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area). NMFS has designated those fisheries listed by analogy in tables 1 and 2 below by adding a superscript “2” after the fishery's name.

This notice contains existing collection-of-information (COI) requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act but would not impose additional or new COI requirements. The COI for the registration of individuals under the MMPA has been approved by the OMB under OMB Control Number 0648-0293 (0.15 hours per report for new registrants). The requirement for reporting marine mammal mortalities or injuries has been approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 0648-0292 (0.15 hours per report). These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the COI. Send comments regarding these reporting burden estimates or any other aspect of the COI, including suggestions for reducing burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). You may also submit comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a COI, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that COI displays a currently valid OMB control number.

In accordance with the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS determined that the publishing these proposed changes to the LOF qualifies to be categorically excluded from further National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion G7 (“Preparation of policy directives, rules, regulations, and guidelines of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature, or for which the environmental effects are too broad, speculative or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will be subject later to the NEPA process, either collectively or on a case-by-case basis”) of the Companion Manual, and we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A that would preclude application of this categorical exclusion. If NMFS takes additional management action (for example, through the development of a TRP), NMFS would first prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment, as required under NEPA, specific to that action.

This notice announces our initiation of a status review of the Rice's whale under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). Section 4(c)(1) requires the maintenance of a list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1)). And under section 4(c)(2), the Secretary shall conduct, at least once every five years, a review of a listed species and consider, among other things, whether a species' listing status should be changed (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)). Based upon this status review process, the Secretary determines whether any such species should be removed from the list (delisted); changed in status from an endangered species to a threatened species (downlisted); or changed in status from a threatened species to an endangered species (uplisted). Each determination must be made in accordance with the requirements and standards provided in section 4(a) and (b) of the ESA. Specifically, section 4(a)(1) requires us to determine whether any species is an endangered or threatened species because of any one of the following 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) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)(A)-(E)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make this determination based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review and after taking into account efforts to protect the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)).

Moreover, pursuant to implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(c), a species shall be reclassified if we determine, on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a status review, that the species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of any one or a combination of the five factors set forth above. And under 50 CFR 424.11(e), a species shall be delisted if we determine, after conducting a status review based on the best scientific and commercial data available, and according to the above factors and standards, that: (1) the species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species; (3) new information that has become available since the original listing decision shows the listed entity does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species; or (4) new information that has become available since the original listing decision shows the listed entity does not meet the definition of a species.

The regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species currently under active review. Accordingly, this notice announces a review of the Rice's whale, which is currently listed as an endangered species. After reviewing all information, we will publish our final determination on the NMFS website: https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/rices-whale#conservation-management. Any recommended change ( i.e., delisting or reclassification) would require a separate rulemaking process.

Rice's whale was initially listed in 2019 under the ESA as an endangered subspecies of the Bryde's whale, Balaenoptera edeni (Gulf of America subspecies (referred to as the Gulf of Mexico subspecies in 84 FR 15446, April 15, 2019)). The listing was finalized after completing a status review (Rosel et al., 2016) in response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council, and after considering the best scientific and commercial data available, including the 2016 status review and comments received on the proposed listing rule (81 FR 88639, December 8, 2016). The subspecies was listed as endangered due to its small population size and restricted range (the Gulf of America), and exposure to numerous threats. In 2021, the Society for Marine Mammalogy reclassified these whales as a species and renamed them “Rice's whale” to reflect new evidence described in Rosel et al. (2021). On August 23, 2021, NMFS published a final rule that revised the ESA listing to “Rice's whale” to reflect the change in the scientifically accepted taxonomy and nomenclature (86 FR 47022, August 23, 2021). The ESA defines the term “species” to include any subspecies and any distinct population segment of any species. (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Therefore, the taxonomic reclassification from a subspecies to species had no effect on the whales' endangered status under the ESA.

To ensure that the status review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we are soliciting new information from the public, relevant governmental agencies, tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties concerning the status of Rice's whale.

Categories of requested information include: (1) species biology including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; (2) habitat conditions including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and suitability; (3) conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species; (4) status and trends of threats; and (5) other new data regarding Rice's whales that have become available since December 2016.

If you wish to provide your information for this status review, please submit it as described in the ADDRESSES section above. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents. While we accept new information about any listed species at any time, information received after the date stated above may not be considered for the purposes of this review.

The NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) developed a benchmark stock assessment for the American Samoa BMUS in 2023. PIFSC developed an update to this assessment, and the purpose of this WPSAR meeting is to convene an expert panel to conduct a peer review of the updated assessment. The 2026 assessment update uses the same modeling methodology as the 2023 benchmark assessment with updated data through 2025. The 2026 assessment update will provide new information to inform management pursuant to the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, including updates on biomass and fishing mortality relative to thresholds used to determine stock status, and new projections to inform recommendations of catch limits. Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

The meeting schedule and agenda are as follows:

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Please direct requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids to Sarah Malloy, (808) 725-5000 (voice) or (808) 725- 5215 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

I. Background

The Commission is requesting public comment on the Commitments of Traders Reports (“COT Reports”). This request for comment provides background on the history, purpose, data, and evolution of the COT Reports program, outlines changes in market structure affecting the reports, and poses specific questions regarding potential future modifications. Public comment for the Commission's review of its practices with respect to the COT Reports will provide the Commission with valuable information and perspective as it evaluates potential modifications to its COT Reports procedures.

The Commission, and its predecessor entities, have long sought to provide the public with information related to the futures markets. Beginning with an intent to provide the public with comprehensive information regarding trading in grain futures, the Commission has enhanced its publication of market information over time to include more contract markets and more frequent publication. Although there is no statutory or regulatory mandated requirement for the Commission to publish the COT Reports, the Commission has received feedback indicating that the report generally provides valuable information to market participants. 1 This request for comment continues a series of efforts by the Commission to maintain an information system that reflects changing market conditions, and to provide the public with useful information regarding futures and options markets.

In 2006, the Commission undertook a comprehensive review of its Commitments of Traders Program. 2 In that review, the Commission discussed at length the history, development, and evolution of the COT Reports  3 and sought feedback from market participants on possible changes to the COT reporting system. 4

The COT Reports provide the public and market participants with information related to open interest in the futures and options markets. Typically, although not in all cases, the Commission includes futures and options markets on the COT Reports when there are twenty or more traders that hold positions above a certain large trader threshold. Currently, the Commission generally publishes the COT Reports on Friday afternoons. The published data is based on Tuesday position data that is sent to the Commission by reporting firms on Wednesday. Although position data is supplied by reporting firms (FCMs, clearing members, foreign brokers and exchanges), the actual trader category or classification is based on the predominant business purpose self-reported by traders on the CFTC Form 40 and subject to review by CFTC staff. 5

The originating predecessor report to today's COT Reports was first issued by the Grain Futures Administration. This report endeavored to provide comprehensive information regarding trading in grain futures. 6 As part of that effort, the report included a distinction between speculative and hedging positions that was derived from the Administration's collection of information from traders as to whether they were engaged in the cash grain business. 7

The Commodity Exchange Authority subsequently began a practice of publishing regular, periodic COT Reports. 8 These reports began as monthly publications published roughly two weeks after the end of the preceding month. Since that time, the publication of the COT Reports has iteratively, over time evolved to be published more frequently, based on more recent position data, and cover more commodity contract markets. The COT Reports also moved from fee-based access to being freely available on the Commission's website. 9 In addition, due to changes to the Commission's collections of information, the classification made in the reports of speculative and hedging positions was no longer included. Rather, reportable positions were classified as commercial or non-commercial. 10

In January 2007, the Commission began publishing a new weekly COT Report, entitled “COT—Supplemental” (“Supplemental Report”). The Supplemental Report includes select agricultural commodity contracts for combined futures and options positions. The Supplemental Report adds a third classification of trader, index traders, and breaks down the reportable open interest positions into: non-commercial, commercial, and index traders. The non-commercial category includes positions of managed funds, pension funds, and other investors that are generally seeking exposure to a broad index of commodity prices as an asset class in an unleveraged and passively managed manner. The commercial category includes positions for entities whose trading predominantly reflects hedging of over-the-counter transactions involving commodity indices. For example, a swap dealer holding long futures positions to hedge a short commodity index exposure opposite institutional traders, such as pension funds.

All of these traders—whether coming from the non-commercial or commercial categories—are generally replicating a commodity index by establishing long futures positions in the component markets and then rolling those positions forward from future to future using a fixed methodology. Some traders assigned to the index traders category are engaged in other futures activity that could not be disaggregated. As a result, the index traders category, which is typically made up of traders with long-only futures positions replicating an index, will include some long and short positions where traders have multi-dimensional trading activities, the preponderance of which is index trading. Likewise, the index traders category will not include some traders who are engaged in index trading, but for whom it does not represent a substantial part of their overall trading activity.

The Commission began publishing a Disaggregated Commitments of Traders Report on September 4, 2009 (“Disaggregated COT Report”). The first iteration of the report covered 22 major physical commodity markets, with other physical commodity markets added later that year. The Disaggregated COT Report further modified the level of market transparency available in the COT Reports by separating traders into the following four categories of traders: Producer/Merchant/Processor/User; Swap Dealers; Managed Money; and Other Reportables, thus providing more granular classifications than the previous commercial and non-commercial categories.

Staff in the Divisions of Data (DOD) and Market Oversight (DMO) construct the COT Reports based on data collected pursuant to the Commission's large trader reporting program. As described sequentially below, DOD and DMO staff currently perform specific activities to create and publish accurate COT Reports.

Staff activities specific to the COT Reports generally begin on Wednesday mornings, when large trader position reports and associated special account identifications associated with the prior business day are received by the Commission. 11 These large trader position reports and special account identifications are, if submitted in accordance with Commission data specifications, loaded into the Commission's data systems and made available to staff.

DOD staff review the data and account identifications reported to the Commission using purpose-built automated tools designed to identify potentially missing or erroneous data and identifications. DOD staff then contact, via email and/or phone, individual firms and request that they investigate and resolve the potential discrepancies identified by staff. Firms contacted by DOD staff generally begin to submit corrected or previously missing data on Wednesday. For missing account identifications, many firms collect and verify the requested information internally on Wednesday and include it in their scheduled batch submission of data to the Commission on Thursday morning. In addition, foreign firms contacted by DOD staff generally do not begin to submit corrected or previously missing data until Thursday.

Also on Wednesdays, DMO staff begin to review and make any necessary corrections to data representing the trader classifications of owner(s) and controller(s) of special accounts associated with positions that will be represented on the COT Reports. 12

On Thursdays, the Commission continues to receive corrected data and account identifications. Newly submitted data is subject to the processes noted above to identify potential discrepancies, missing data, and to determine trader classifications. Staff engage with reporting firms and traders throughout Thursday, and sometimes into Friday, regarding certain identified missing or potentially erroneous data.

On Thursday, DOD staff continue review newly received data while also undertaking a comprehensive validation process on the reports that includes verifying aggregated positions and analyzing the reasonableness of position trends over time. Validated data is passed to Commission subject matter experts in the DMO for further review. These review processes continue into Thursday afternoon as DMO subject matter experts iteratively analyze the data, make modifications necessary to correct any trader classifications, and, when they are satisfied with the accuracy of the report, approve the COT Reports data for publication.

On Friday morning, CFTC staff responsible for the Commission's website prepare the COT Reports for publication. Commission subject matter experts in the DMO again review and approve the COT Reports in their final publication form. The Reports in their final publication form are embargoed and ultimately published at 3:30 p.m. ET on Friday.

Since October 2022, the Commission has also simultaneously published the COT Reports data to a public reporting environment. CFTC's Public Reporting Environment, available at: https://publicreporting.cftc.gov/, was intended to further support industry professionals needing to customize, search, filter, analyze, and download COT Reports data. The Public Reporting Environment allows users to freely download COT Reports data for user-selected reporting dates and contract markets, as well as to use an application programming interface to access and download the COT Reports data.

In a continuation of its efforts to provide appropriate and useful information to the public and market participants, and in light of evolving markets and the introduction of new and innovative products, the CFTC is now seeking public comment concerning whether it should adopt any changes to the COT Reports. Commenters are invited to submit comments on COT Reports generally and to submit comments on the potential impacts of modifying the COT Reports publication. These impacts may include benefits and risks to markets and market participants, and commenters are encouraged to discuss these benefits and risks in their comments. Such modifications could be made as part of the CFTC's ongoing efforts both to maintain an information system that reflects changing market conditions, and to provide the public with useful information regarding futures and options markets.

The CFTC has formulated the following questions based upon its initial review of issues relating to the COT Reports. Responses from interested parties will advance the CFTC's understanding of these issues and may result in modifications to the Commission's COT Report processes to resolve any problems that are identified regarding the COT Reports. Each enumerated question should be addressed individually. Interested parties are also welcome to address other topics or issues that they believe are relevant to the COT Reports.

1. Should the CFTC continue to publish the COT Reports on their current schedule?

2. More specifically, if the CFTC determined to publish the COT Reports on a more frequent basis:

(a) On what frequency and schedule (days of week or month) should the Reports be published and why?

(b) Currently, the COT Reports are published on Friday afternoon. Would the publication of a COT Reports on another day during the week increase any market impact associated with the Reports publication?

(c) If the Commission were to also publish COT Reports on a non-Friday day of the week, should the Commission consider other market events, such as options expirations, futures roll dates, or other market information release dates, when determining when to publish the COT Reports more frequently?

3. Could more frequent publication of the COT Reports increase certain risks for market participants? For example:

(a) Would more frequent publication increase the likelihood that market participants reading the reports would be able to deduce the identity of the position holders, or other proprietary information, from the Reports?  13

(b) Could such persons use information gleaned from more frequent publication of the COT Reports to gain a trading advantage over the reported position holders?

4. If the CFTC determined to publish the COT Reports on a more frequent basis, should the CFTC make any additional changes to the report not discussed in response to Questions 2 and 3 above?

(a) Considering the data reporting and authorities under Part 15, Part 16, Part 17, Part 18, and Part 150 of the Commission's regulations: Are there data properties and trader updates that the Commission should consider that would impact a more frequent COT publication?

(b) Given the FAQ's  14 and the related policies regarding trader classification (#3) and corrected data (#6), what data properties and timelines should the Commission consider when considering a more frequent publication schedule?

5. Given the variety of market characteristics (trading hours, trader composition, volatility variables, market size, depth and the related derivatives), what factors should the Commission consider to facilitate a more frequent COT Reports publication schedule?

6. Should the CFTC continue to generally publish the COT Reports based on data from three business days prior ( i.e., Friday publication based on Tuesday close-of-business market positions)?

7. More specifically, if the CFTC determined to publish the COT Reports based on more recent data:

(a) How recent should the data in the COT Reports be (for example, Friday publication based on Wednesday close-of-business market positions)?

(b) Would publication of the COT Reports using more recent data increase the likelihood that persons reading the reports would be able to deduce the identity of the position holders, or other proprietary information, from the reports?  15

(c) Could such persons use information gleaned from more frequent publication of the COT Reports using more recent data to gain a trading advantage over the reported position holders?

(d) If the CFTC determined to publish the COT Reports based on more recent data, should the CFTC make any additional changes to the report not discussed in response to Questions 2, 3 and 4 above?

8. Should the CFTC include all futures and option contracts that have 20 or more traders on the COT Reports? Are there other measures that the Commission should use when evaluating whether to include a contract on the COT Reports?

9. Given the increased variety in the types of contracts and products traded on designated contract markets, are there any categories of contracts (for example, binary options) that should be included or excluded from the COT Reports? Why or why not?

10. The current COT Reports publication schedule provides Commission staff and reporting firms with time to identify and correct data quality issues as described at Section I.B.4 above. If the COT Reports were published based on more recent data, Commission staff and reporting firms would have less time to identify and correct data quality issues. How should the Commission consider the risk of decreased COT Reports data accuracy when determining whether to publish the COT Reports based on more recent data? Should the Commission consider changing existing staff processes that are described in Section I.B.4?

11. If the CFTC determines to publish the COT Reports either on a more frequent basis or using more recent data or both, but is prevented from doing so for a period of time due to a need to change its data flows or staff processes that may inhibit such publication on a more frequent basis or using more recent data, should the CFTC consider phasing in such enhancements? If so, how?

(a) Should the CFTC consider publishing additional COT Reports that are limited, for a period of time, to the categories of contracts that would provide the most benefit to the public? What would those categories of contracts be?

(b) Should the CFTC consider publishing additional COT Reports that are limited, for a period of time, to certain contents that would provide the most benefit to the public? What would those contents be?

(c) As a response to rapid market innovation, should the Commission consider a test or beta version by market or asset class? If so, what should the Commission consider for such a series of reports? Would the Commission need additional data that could contribute to such market transparency?

12. Should the CFTC consider the implementation timing of recently adopted modifications to its large trader reporting requirements when considering the timing of any changes to the COT Reports publication schedule?  16

13. As noted in Section I.B.4, the CFTC currently provides an interactive Public Reporting Environment for COT Reports data. Regarding this interactive user interface,

(a) Does it provide value to the public?

(b) Should the CFTC continue to provide this service? Why or why not?

(c) Should the CFTC consider changes to its Public Reporting Environment? Why or why not?

On this matter, Chairman Selig voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

In accordance with various embodiments of the disclosed subject matter, a system and method is configured for scheduling and invoking power sharing among satellites within a constellation of satellites such that energy storage systems at a target satellite may by charged prior to the use of electric propulsion thrust activation or other high electricity demand operations (or such operations contemporaneously augmented) by power beams transmitted from other (source) satellites within the constellation.

U.S. Patent No. 12,024,316, issued on July 2, 2024 and entitled “System and method improving satellite capability through power sharing”.

The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license.

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.

In accordance with various embodiments of the disclosed subject matter, a system and method is configured for scheduling and invoking power sharing among satellites within a constellation of satellites such that energy storage systems at a target satellite may by charged prior to the use of electric propulsion thrust activation or other high electricity demand operations (or such operations contemporaneously augmented) by power beams transmitted from other (source) satellites within the constellation.

U.S. Patent No. 11,760,509, issued on September 19, 2023 and entitled “System and method improving satellite capability through power sharing”.

The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license.

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.

A desired N.sup.th-order Stokes output and zeroth-order Stokes pump input are seeded into a rare-earth doped amplifier where the power of the zeroth-order Stokes signal is amplified prior to both signals entering a Raman amplifier comprised of N−1 Raman resonators, each uniquely tuned to one of the N−1 Stokes orders, in various configurations to include one or more nested and/or in-series Raman resonators. The zeroth-order Stokes signal is converted to the N.sup.th−1-order Stokes wavelength in steps and the power level of the N.sup.th-order Stokes wavelength is amplified as the two signals propagate through the Raman resonators. Each Raman resonator includes a photosensitive Raman fiber located between a pair of Bragg gratings. The linewidths of the Stokes orders can be controlled by offsetting the reflectivity bandwidths of each pair of Bragg gratings respectively located in the Raman resonators.

U.S. Patent No. 9,647,418, issued on May 9, 2017 and entitled “Laser Generation using dual seeded nested and/or in-series raman resonators, for telecommunications applications.”

The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license.

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.

A system comprising an orbiting transponder in bilateral communication with a hub and a plurality of terminals. The hub automatically allocates power to the transponder based upon prequalification criteria, then dynamically adjusts an uplink carrier to noise ratio to prevent loss of weak signals. The system, and method of operation may further minimize variance in uplink adjustments according to a predictive algorithm.

U.S. Patent No. 12,133,210 B2, issued on October 29, 2024 and entitled “Dynamically controlled satellite hub and method of operations”.

The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license.

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.

A method of precoding the power of a channel of a ground terminal in communication with a satellite. The ground terminal is subject to limitations in terrestrial mobile network rates and other congestion conditions. An actual signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio is calculated and adjusted according to a desired signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio for a predetermined time epoch. The actual signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio is adjusted while considering the competing requirements of both: the energy of the difference between the successive actual/desired signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio levels and the energy of the control sequences. The actual signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio is autonomously converged with the desired with the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio, subject to the limitations in terrestrial mobile network rates and other congestion conditions, by dynamically minimizing covariance error and predicting gain for the epoch.

U.S. Patent No. 11,996,916 B2, issued on May 28, 2024 and entitled “System and methods of on-ground digital precoding for hybrid terrestrial-satellite mobile networks”.

The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license.

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.

A multi-gateway multi-beam satellite communication system. The system has a satellite a plurality of gateways for providing broadband services to users and being in bilateral communication with the satellite by a like plurality of feeder links and a second plurality of clusters of coverage areas in bilateral communication with the satellite by a like plurality of service links. The system has a precoder for allocating power to either or both of the feeder links and service links. Precoding can be based on signal to noise plus interference ratio or interference temperature. Precoding can be based on discrete-time dynamical feedback system frameworks with real-time feedback signaling comprised of signal-to-noise plus interference ratio, signal-to-leakage-plus-noise ratio, interference temperatures and/or tracking errors.

U.S. Patent No. 11,979,208 B1, issued on May 7, 2024 and entitled “Multi-gateway multi-beam satellite communication system with precoding feedback controllers”.

The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license.

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.

The purpose of the CGSA program is to enhance the quality of assessment instruments and assessment systems used by States for measuring the academic achievement and growth of elementary and secondary school students. The FY 2026 competition includes two absolute priorities, three competitive preference priorities, two invitational priorities, selection criteria, and requirements. The absolute priorities are: (1) Developing Innovative Assessment Item Types and Design Approaches and (2) Meaningful Learning Opportunities. The competitive preference priorities are: (1) Improving Assessment Scoring and Score Reporting, (2) Assessing Student Growth, and (3) Comprehensive Academic Assessment Instruments. The invitational priorities are: (1) Assessment and Data Literacy and (2) Comprehensive Assessment Systems: Aligned Formative, Diagnostic, and Interim Assessments.

Maximum Award: The maximum award an eligible applicant may receive is $4,000,000 for the total project period (up to 48 months).

Minimum Award: The minimum award an eligible applicant may receive is proportional to the State's proportion of the school-age children across all States. See the application notice and instructions on Grants.gov for more information.

Eligible Applicants: State educational agencies (SEAs) (as defined in section 8101(49) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and consortia of such SEAs.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6363(b)(1).

To Apply: The complete funding opportunity announcement and all information needed to apply, including the priorities, selection criteria, and requirements, are available on ED's website at https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-birth-grade-12/school-and-community-improvement-grants/competitive-grants-state-assessments#applicant-information-and-eligibility, on DOL's website at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/grants/apply/find-opportunities, and on Grants.gov at https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362142. The application notice and instructions on Grants.gov is the official document governing the grant competition.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format.

Note: Henry Maklakiewicz signs this notice in furtherance of DOL's role in providing support to ED.

The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Loan Rehabilitation: Reasonable and Affordable Payments.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0120.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 139,000.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 139,000.

Abstract: This is a request for an extension with change of the information collection for the form used to obtain standardized financial information from borrowers with defaulted Direct Loan (DL) or Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program loans. This information is used by either the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) or a guaranty agency to make a determination of a reasonable and affordable monthly loan payment which if made according to the agreed schedule would afford defaulted borrowers an opportunity for loan rehabilitation.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed into law on July 4, 2025, made statutory changes that require updates to the 1845-0120 Loan Rehabilitation: Reasonable and Affordable Payments collection. This revision to this information collection package reflect the statutory changes made by the OBBBA for the 2026-27 award year. The Department plans to submit another revision to this form for public comment as soon as practicable to make additional form changes for the requirements that begin in the 2027-28 award year.

This information collection request contains

(1) OMB No.: 1905-0210;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery;

(3) Type of Request: Three-year extension without change;

(4) Purpose: This information collection activity provides a means to collect qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. Qualitative feedback means data that provide useful insights on perceptions and opinions but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of the study. This feedback provides insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations. It also provides an early warning of issues with service, or focuses attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve the accuracy of data report on survey instruments or the delivery of products or services. These collections allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the agency and its customers and stakeholders. It also allows feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management. EIA will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;

• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions;

• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study;

• The collections are voluntary;

• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;

• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;

• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future; and

• With the exception of information needed to provide remuneration for participants of focus groups and cognitive laboratory studies, personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained.

If these conditions are not met, EIA will submit an information collection request to OMB for approval through the normal PRA process. The solicitation of feedback on Agency Service Delivery includes topics such as: timeliness of publishing, understanding of questions and terminology used in EIA products, perceptions on data confidentiality and security, appropriateness and relevancy of information published, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses are assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. Advances in technology and service delivery systems in the private sector, have increased the public's expectations of the Government's customer service promise. The Federal Government has a responsibility to streamline and make more efficient its service delivery to better serve the public.

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 80,600;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 80,600;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 8,600;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $816,914 (8,600 annual burden hours multiplied by $94.99 per hour). EIA estimates that respondents will have no additional costs associated with the surveys other than the burden hours and the maintenance of the information during the normal course of business.

Comments are invited on whether or not: (a) The proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (b) EIA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used, is accurate; (c) EIA can improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it will collect; and (d) EIA can minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, such as automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Statutory Authority: Executive Order 12,862 (1993) and Executive Order 13,571 (2011).

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: New;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Annual Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey;

(3) Type of Request: New;

(4) Purpose: EIA has administered Form EIA-846, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, as a quadrennial product since 1988. Given the rapidly evolving energy-intensive economic landscape, EIA is proposing to initiate a narrower but more frequent data collection, the Annual Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, Form EIA-847. This new form would supplement the quadrennial collection with a subset of data covering the intervening years. EIA could initiate collection under Form EIA-847 as early as 2026 for the 2025 reference year. EIA is not currently proposing any changes to Form EIA-846, which would continue to be administered in support of EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) industrial models. The purpose of Form EIA-847 would be to collect the minimal data required to update NEMS each year.

Form EIA-847 will be a self-administered sample survey of a subset of the manufacturing sector. Specifically, EIA proposes to limit this subset to sector codes 31-33 of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The information from this survey will be used to produce aggregate statistics on the energy consumption of the manufacturing sector, including energy purchases, expenditures, transfers in and shipments out, onsite generation and both fuel and nonfuel use of five widely used energy sources. To maintain an updated NEMS each year, Form EIA-847 will also be used to update the historical industrial energy consumption benchmark.

Form EIA-847, consisting of approximately 60 questions, will have a significantly reduced response burden compared to Form EIA-846, which consists of more than 250 questions. To keep the response burden as low as possible, EIA proposes a reduced sample size and only collecting data through Centurion, an electronic-collection platform. This method will allow respondents to choose which questions are pertinent to a specific establishment and will improve data editing and processing times overall.

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,500;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 4,500;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 8,484;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: The cost of the burden hours is estimated to be $805,895 (8,484 annual burden hours multiplied by $94.99 per burden hour). EIA estimates that there are no additional costs to respondents associated with the survey other than the costs associated with the burden hours. A slight amount of burden hours may be necessary to conduct data follow-up questioning. The number of respondents affected by the follow-up questioning will be minimal and the associated burden hours are negligible.

Statutory Authority: 15 U.S.C. 772(b), 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.