The designations of the official agencies listed below will end on the prescribed dates:

Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). A designated agency may provide official inspection service and/or Class X or Class Y weighing services at locations other than export port locations. Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies may be awarded for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the USGSA. See also 7 CFR 800.196 for further information and guidance.

Description: In Georgia: The entire state of Georgia.

In Iowa: Butler (north of CR C23, east of CR T47, north of CR C33, and west of IA-88), Cerro Gordo, Floyd (north of 280th St and west of Shadow Ave), Franklin (northwest of I-35, north of CR C55, west of CR S56, and north of CR C23), Hancock, Kossuth (east of US-169), Mitchell, Winnebago, Worth, and Wright (North of West Highway 3, east of US-17, north of Broadway St, east of South Kirkwood Ave, north of 5th St S, north of 270th Street, east of US-69, and northwest of I-35) Counties.

In Minnesota: Faribault, Freeborn, and Mower Counties.

In New Jersey: The entire state of New Jersey.

In New York: The entire state of New York.

In South Carolina: Abbeville, Aiken, Allendale, Anderson, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Calhoun, Charleston, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, Edgefield, Fairfield, Georgetown, Greenwood, Hampton, Jasper, Laurens, Lexington, McCormick, Newberry, Oconee, Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda, Sumter, and Williamsburg Counties.

Exports: All export waterborne carriers/vessels are serviced by FGIS.

Description: In Minnesota: Blue Earth, Brown, Carver, Dakota, Dodge, Goodhue, Hennepin, Le Sueur, McLeod, Nicollet, Ramsey, Rice, Scott, Sibley, Steele, Waseca, Washington, and Watonwan Counties.

Description: In North Carolina: The entire state of North Carolina.

In South Carolina: Cherokee, Chester, Chesterfield, Darlington, Dillon, Florence, Greenville, Horry, Kershaw, Lancaster, Lee, Marion, Marlboro, Pickens, Spartanburg, Union, and York Counties.

Exports: All export waterborne carriers/vessels are serviced by FGIS.

Description: In Oklahoma: Beaver, Cimarron, and Texas Counties.

In Texas: Armstrong (north of Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River), Carson, Childress, Collingsworth, Dallam, Deaf Smith (north of CR FM 1062 and east of US-385), Donley, Gray, Hall (east of US-287), Hansford, Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Lipscomb, Moore, Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter, Randall (north of Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River, TX-217, US-60 [Canyon], and Farm to Market (FM) 1062), Roberts, Sherman, and Wheeler Counties.

Exports: All export waterborne carriers/vessels are serviced by FGIS.

Description: In Texas: Anderson, Angelina, Atascosa, Austin, Bandera, Bastrop, Bell, Bexar, Blanco, Bosque, Brazos, Brewster, Brown, Burleson, Burnet, Caldwell, Camp, Cherokee, Collin, Comal, Comanche, Concho, Cooke, Coryell, Crane, Crockett, Culberson, Dallas, Delta, Denton, DeWitt, Eastland, Edwards, Ellis, El Paso, Erath, Falls, Fannin, Fayette, Franklin, Freestone, Frio, Gillespie, Gonzales, Grayson, Gregg, Grimes, Guadalupe, Hamilton, Hardin, Harrison, Hays, Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hopkins, Houston, Hudspeth, Hunt, Irion, Jack, Jasper, Jeff Davis, Johnson, Karnes, Kaufman, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Lamar, Lampasas, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Liberty, Limestone, Llano, Loving, McCulloch, McLennan, Madison, Marion, Mason, Maverick, Medina, Menard, Milam, Mills, Montague, Montgomery, Morris, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Orange, Palo Pinto, Panola, Parker, Pecos, Polk, Presidio, Rains, Reagan, Real, Red River, Reeves, Robertson, Rockwall, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, San Saba, Schleicher, Shelby, Smith, Somervell, Stephens, Sutton, Tarrant, Terrell, Titus, Tom Green, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur, Upton, Uvalde, Val Verde, Van Zandt, Walker, Ward, Washington, Williamson, Wilson, Wise, Wood, Young, and Zavala Counties.

Description: In Utah: The entire state of Utah.

Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. To apply for designation, or for more information, contact Candace Hildreth at the address listed above or visit the AMS website at http://www.ams.usda.gov.

We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by Amarillo Grain Exchange, Inc.; D.R. Schaal Agency, Inc.; North Carolina Department of Agriculture; State Grain Inspection, Inc.; and Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicants. Submit all comments to Candace Hildreth at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

Title: Restrictions on Importation of Live Poultry, Poultry Meat, and Other Poultry Products from Specified Regions.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0228.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: Under the authority of the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to prohibit or restrict the importation and interstate movement of animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into and dissemination within the United States of livestock diseases and pests. To carry out the mission, APHIS regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States. The relevant regulations are contained in 9 CFR parts 93 through 94.

Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population and for enhancing the United States' ability to compete in the world market of animal and animal product trade. The APHIS Veterinary Services (VS) program administers regulations intended to prevent the introduction of animal diseases into the United States. The regulations in parts 93 and 94 place certain restrictions on the import of live poultry, poultry meat, and other poultry products from certain regions to prevent an incursion of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), Newcastle disease (ND), or other exotic poultry diseases into the United States.

To ensure live poultry, poultry meat, and other poultry products from these areas do not pose a risk of bringing HPAI, ND, or other exotic poultry diseases into the United States, APHIS requires the following information collection activities: reports that the poultry have been offered for importation; health certificates, certificates of origin; recordkeeping; cooperative service agreements; and certificates for shipment back to the United States.

We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years. APHIS has amended this information collection by increasing the number of Respondents, Responses, and Total Burden Hours reported; however, APHIS has moved the following Forms to the new VS Permit Common Forms information collection:

• VS Form 17-129: Application for Import or In-Transit Permit (for Live Animals, Animal Semen, Animal Embryos, Birds, Poultry, and Hatching Eggs).

• VS Form 17-29: Application for Import or In-Transit Permit (for Live Animals, Animal Semen, Animal Embryos, Birds, Poultry, and Hatching Eggs).

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.0 hours per response.

Respondents: Foreign animal health authorities; importers of live poultry, poultry meat, and other poultry products; pet bird owners; and zoological facilities.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 4,272.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 17.

Estimated annual number of responses: 74,650.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 74,653 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The General Conference Committee (the Committee) of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) is the Secretary's Advisory Committee on poultry health. The Committee serves as a forum for the study of matters relating to poultry health and, as necessary, makes specific recommendations to the Secretary concerning ways the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) may assist the industry in addressing these matters. The Committee assists the Department in planning, organizing, and conducting the Biennial Conference of the NPIP. The Committee recommends whether new proposals should be considered by the delegates to the Biennial Conference and serves as a direct liaison between the NPIP and the United States Animal Health Association.

The Committee consists of an elected member-at-large who is an NPIP participant and an elected member (and alternate) from each of the six U.S. regions represented on the Committee. Terms will expire for three current regional members in August 2026. We are soliciting nominations from interested organizations and individuals to replace the members and alternates from the South Atlantic (Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia), West North Central (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and South Central (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas).

Member selection is determined by a majority vote of the NPIP delegates from the respective regions. There must be at least two nominees for each position. Persons interested in serving on the Committee or nominating another individual to serve must submit a nomination with information and a complete Form AD-755, which is available on the internet at https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ad-755-advisory-committee-commodity-board-background-information.pdf or may be obtained by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (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.

Authority: 9 CFR 147.43

The Emerging Technology Technical Advisory Committee (ETTAC) advises the Department of Commerce on certain actions required to achieve the objectives set forth in Section 1752 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, 50 U.S.C. 4811.

During the open session, ETTAC will consider public comments, and/or industry presentations. During the closed session, the ETTAC will discuss U.S. Government strategies and potential revisions to export control policies. Participants are encouraged to identify emerging technologies that are not currently controlled, but should be.

The discussion of matters in the closed session are exempted from the open meeting and public participation requirements found in Sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(1), (a)(3)). Exemption is authorized by Section 10(d) of the FACA (5 U.S.C. 1009(d)), which permits the closure of advisory committee meetings, or portions thereof, if the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines that such meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)). In this case, the applicable provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) are subsection 552b(c)(4), which permits closure to protect trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, and subsection 552b(c)(9)(B), which permits closure to protect information which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action if prematurely disclosed.

The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. Members of the public are encouraged to submit materials via email to TAC@bis.doc.gov no later than May 27, 2026, for timely distribution of information to ETTAC members. Submissions by the public will be made available to the public and should not contain any confidential information, unless the submitter specifically requests that the information be treated as Confidential Business Information (CBI) for consideration in the closed session. Any information designated as CBI will not be discussed during the open portion of the meeting, but it may be used to inform the work of committee members during the closed session. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements in the open session. Meeting materials will be accessible to the public at https://www.bis.gov/about-bis/technical-advisory-committees-tac.

Members of the public may attend the open session in person. Registration in advance is required to attend in person. Individuals interested in participating in the June 2, 2026, ETTAC meeting should contact TAC@bis.doc.gov by 11:59 p.m. on May 27, 2026, to register. Registered participants will be emailed instructions on accessing the designated meeting space. Attendees will be asked to sign in and must have a photo ID, such as a Real ID or passport, to enter the building.

Individuals requiring special accommodations should contact TAC@bis.doc.gov no later than 11:59 p.m. on May 25, 2026, so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

If the meeting is cancelled, a cancellation notice will be posted on the TAC website at https://www.bis.gov/about-bis/technical-advisory-committees-tac.

The Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, formally determined pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List, Supp. No. 1 to part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730-774, and to U.S. export control policies, which may also include discussion of trade secrets and/or confidential business information, shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(1) and 5 U.S.C 1009(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on January 5, 2026. 1 On February 13, 2026, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now May 8, 2026. 2

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary 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 Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/frnotices.

The product covered by this investigation is chromium trioxide from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, 4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. Accordingly, Commerce has made no changes to the scope of this investigation from that which appeared in the Initiation Notice, see Appendix I.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 6

As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final determination in this CVD investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of chromium trioxide from India based on a request made by American Chrome & Chemical, Inc. (the petitioner). 7 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than August 3, 2026, unless postponed.

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely under section 776 of the Act.

Commerce calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for Vishnu Chemicals Limited (VCL), the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated rate is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average rate calculated for VCL is the rate assigned to all other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

In accordance with section 703(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Further, pursuant to section 703(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.107(e), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated company-specific countervailable subsidy rate or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated individual countervailable subsidy rates determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if both the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise have company-specific estimated subsidy rates determined in this preliminary determination, and their rates differ, then the applicable cash deposit rate will be the higher of these two rates; (3) if either the producer or the exporter, but not both, of the subject merchandise have a company-specific estimated subsidy rate determined in this preliminary determination, the applicable cash deposit rate will be that company's company-specific rate; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the estimated all-others subsidy rate.

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

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments will be notified to interested parties at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 9 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 10

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 11 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 12

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of chromium trioxide from India are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

On September 11, 2025, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review in the Federal Register and invited interested parties to comment. 1 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days, 2 and, due to a backlog of documents that were administratively filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 3 On February 18, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline for the final results an additional 51 days. 4 Accordingly, the deadline for these final results is now May 8, 2026. 5 For a complete description of the events that occurred after the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 6 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/FRnotices.

The merchandise covered by the Order is welded pipe. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

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

Based on our analysis of the case and rebuttal briefs and the evidence on the record, we made no changes from the Preliminary Results.

Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 8 For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

The Act and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the subsidy rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination where Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce normally determines the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 777A(e)(2) of the Act provides that “the individual countervailable subsidy rates determined under subparagraph (A) shall be used to determine the all-others rate under section 705(c)(5) {of the Act}.” Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that for companies not investigated, in general, we will determine an all-others rate by weight averaging the countervailable subsidy rates established for each of the companies individually investigated, excluding zero and de minimis rates or any rates based solely on facts otherwise available. There are eight companies for which a review was requested and not rescinded, and which were not selected as mandatory respondents or found to be cross-owned with a mandatory respondent. For these companies, because the rate calculated for mandatory respondent, Hyundai RB, is above de minimis and not based entirely on facts available, we are applying a subsidy rate based on net subsidy rate calculated for Hyundai RB to the non-selected companies under review, consistent with our practice pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the POR January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations of the final results of an administrative review within five days of a public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because we have made no changes to the Preliminary Results, there are no new calculations to disclose.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review, for the above-listed companies at the applicable ad valorem assessment rates for the POR ( i.e., January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for each of the companies listed above based on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. 14 For all non-reviewed firms subject to the Order, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific rate or the all-others rate established in the original investigation ( i.e., 9.29 percent), as appropriate. 15 These cash deposit requirements, effective upon publication of these final results, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

On January 8, 2026, Commerce published the Preliminary Results and invited interested parties to comment. 1 Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published these Preliminary Results, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for these final results, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2

The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/frnotices.

The products covered by the scope of the Order are certain steel nails (nails) from Malaysia. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4

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

Based on our review of the record and our evaluation of the comments received from interested parties, we made certain changes to the weighted-average dumping margin calculations and denied a scrap offset for Region International Co., Ltd. and Region System Sdn. Bhd. (collectively, Region) for these final results of review. 5

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

In this review, we preliminarily calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for Region that was not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the basis of facts available. 6 For the final results, we continue to calculate a weighted-average dumping margin for Region that is not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the basis of facts available. Accordingly, consistent with our practice, for the final results of this review, we continue to assign to the non-selected mandatory respondents the dumping margin calculated for Region, i.e., 1.98 percent. 7

We determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations and analysis performed for Region for these final results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce relied entirely on the basis of facts available to determine the rate for Madura, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, there are no calculations to disclose with regard to this company.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 9 For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis ( i.e., 0.50 percent), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis, Commerce will issue instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries.

To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the amount of dumping calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during the POR.

For the companies listed in Appendix II which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the review-specific rate, calculated as noted in the “Rate for Non-Individually Examined Companies” section, above. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

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

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies noted above will be that established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 2.66 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. 10 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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 subject to sanction. Notification to Interested Parties

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

On April 27, 2021, Commerce published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on aluminum sheet from Taiwan. 1 On April 1, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order. 2 On May 20, 2025, based on timely requests  3 for an administrative review, Commerce initiated an antidumping duty administrative review of the Order with respect to CSAC. 4

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days, 5 and, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 6 On February 18, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline for these preliminary results by 60 days. 7 Accordingly the deadline for these preliminary results is now May 8, 2026.

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 8 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/frnotices.

The product covered by the Order is aluminum sheets from Taiwan. For a full description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Based on record information, we preliminarily determine that CSAC did not have knowledge that the subject merchandise was destined for the United States, and, thus, CSAC is not considered the exporter of subject merchandise during the POR for the purposes of this review. 9 Therefore, we preliminarily determine that CSAC made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Consistent with Commerce's practice, we find that it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to CSAC, but rather to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review. 10

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Normally, Commerce will disclose to the parties in a proceeding the calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of the preliminary results in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce is preliminarily finding that CSAC made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, there are no calculations to disclose.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 11 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 12 All briefs must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety in ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 13 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this administrative review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 14

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date and time to be determined. 15

All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, should be filed via ACCESS. 16 An electronically filed document must be received successfully by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).

If the determination of no shipments is maintained at the final results, we will instruct CBP to liquidate suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by CSAC at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the company involved in the transaction. 17

The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

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

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

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(2), 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On January 8, 2026, Commerce published the Preliminary Results and invited parties to comment. 1 No interested party submitted comments on the Preliminary Results. Commerce made no changes from the Preliminary Results, which are herein adopted as the final results of review. Additionally, because these final results remain unchanged from the Preliminary Results, no decision memorandum accompanies this notice. Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The merchandise covered by the Order is CORE from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of the O rder, see the appendix to this notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. On October 4, 2024, BlueScope Steel Vietnam Ltd. and BlueScope Steel Americas LLC (BlueScope) timely filed withdrawals of requests for review. 3 Because the withdrawals of the review requests were timely filed, and no other party requested a review of these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce is rescinding this review of the Order with respect to BlueScope. 4

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an antidumping duty investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review.

Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely on the basis of facts available.” Where the rates for the individually examined companies are all zero, de minimis, or determined entirely using facts available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act instructs that Commerce “may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.”

In this administrative review, we calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for each of the mandatory respondents, Dongkuk Coated Metal Co., Ltd. (Dongkuk) and Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai), that is zero percent, and we did not calculate any margins which are not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the basis of facts available. Thus, in accordance with the expected method, and consistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Albemarle, 5 we are assigning a dumping margin of zero percent, consistent with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, to the non-selected companies under review.

For these final results, we determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024:

Background

Commerce published its Preliminary Results in this NSR of the antidumping duty (AD) Order   1 on prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC strand) from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on November 26, 2025. 2 On December 16, 2025, Essen Steel submitted a case brief. 3 On January 5, 2026, Insteel Wire Products Company, Sumiden Wire Products Corporation, and Wire Mesh Corporation (collectively, the petitioners) submitted a rebuttal brief. 4 No party requested a hearing in this matter.

The issue discussed in the case and rebuttal briefs is addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The sole issue raised in the case brief is listed in the appendix to this notice.

The merchandise covered by this Order is PC strand from the UAE. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

For the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce continues to find that the sale made by Essen Steel is not a bona fide sale for purposes of the AD law. Commerce reached this conclusion based on the totality of evidence, including, among other things, the sales timing, price, and quantity. Because Essen Steel made no bona fide sales during the period of review (POR), we are rescinding the NSR.

As Commerce is rescinding this NSR, Essen Steel's status with respect to the AD Order on PC strand from the UAE remains unchanged. Essen Steel's entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR will be assessed at the all-others' rate.

Because we are rescinding this NSR, we are not determining a company-specific cash deposit rate for Essen Steel. Essen Steel continues to be subject to the all-others' rate of 170.65 percent. 6

This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, 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.

We are issuing and publishing this rescission in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

On March 28, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Thailand. 1 On July 1, 2025, Commerce selected Thai Union  2 and Thai Royal Frozen Foods Public Co., Ltd. (Thai Royal) as the mandatory respondents in this administrative review. 3 On February 10, 2026, Commerce notified interested parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review with respect to the companies that had no suspended entries during the POR. 4

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 5 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 6 On December 19, 2025, Commerce extended the time limit for these preliminary results by 120 days to May 7, 2026, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 7 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included in Appendix I to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/frnotices.

The merchandise subject to the Order is shrimp from Thailand. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an AD order where it concludes that there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR. 8 Normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the AD assessment rate for the review period. 9 Therefore, for an administrative review to be conducted, there must be a suspended entry that Commerce can instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate at the calculated AD assessment rate for the POR. 10

Commerce notified all interested parties of its intent to rescind the instant review regarding the companies listed in Appendix II because there were no reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise from these companies during the POR and invited interested parties to comment. 11 No party commented on our Intent to Rescind Memorandum. In the absence of any suspended entries of subject merchandise from these companies during the POR, we are rescinding this administrative review for the companies listed in Appendix II of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

Among the companies under review, (1) the Rubicon Group; (2) Marine Gold Products Ltd. (Marine Gold); and (3) Thai Union Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Thai Union Manufacturing) properly filed statements reporting that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 12 We preliminarily determine that there is no evidence on the record of this review that contradicts the Rubicon Group, Marine Gold's, and Thai Union Manufacturing's claims of no shipments. Therefore, we are continuing to include the Rubicon Group, Marine Gold, and Thai Union Manufacturing in this administrative review for purposes of these preliminary results. Moreover, consistent with our practice, we are not preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to these companies; but, rather, we will complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review. 13

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We calculated export and constructed export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to apply to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review.

Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), or determined entirely on the basis of facts available. Where the weighted-average dumping margin for each of the individually examined companies is zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that Commerce may use “any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.”

For these preliminary results, because the rate calculated for Thai Royal is zero, we are preliminarily assigning to the companies under review that were not selected for individual examination a dumping margin based on the rate calculated for Thai Union.

We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2024, through January 31, 2025:

Background

On September 11, 2025, Commerce published the Preliminary Results and invited interested parties to comment. 1 This administrative review covers one exporter of subject merchandise, the sole mandatory respondent, Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Borusan Boru)   2 and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (Istikbal) (collectively, Borusan). 3 On October 20, 2025, Borusan submitted a case brief. 4 On December 23, 2025, Wheatland Tube (Wheatland), a domestic producer and interested party, submitted a rebuttal brief. 5

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 6 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 7 On March 12, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline for the final results by 53 days. 8 As a result, the deadline for these final results of review is May 11, 2026.

For a complete description of the events that followed the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 9 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/frnotices.

Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The scope of the Order covers circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Türkiye. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in the appendix to this notice.

Based on our analysis of the comments received, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we will revise the language used in the final liquidation instructions that are issued following the completion of this proceeding to account for Borusan's name change.

For these final results, we determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period May 1, 2023, through April 30, 2024:

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations of the final results of an administrative review within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because we have not modified our analysis from the Preliminary Results, there are no calculations to disclose for the final results.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined in these final results of this review, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for examined sales to each importer to the total entered value of those sales. Where an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Pursuant to a refinement to Commerce's assessment practice, for subject merchandise that was entered into the United States, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the POR, that was produced or exported by Borusan for which Borusan did not report the sale in its U.S. sales database, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the entry of such merchandise at the all-others rate ( i.e., 14.74 percent)  12 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 13

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

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register , as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for companies subject to this review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin listed in the “Final Results of Review” section above; (2) for merchandise that was exported by a company that is not under review and the company has a company-specific cash deposit rate from a completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific cash deposit rate from a completed segment of the proceeding that is currently applicable to the company; (3) if the exporter of the subject merchandise was not covered by this review or a previously completed segment of this proceeding, but the producer of the subject merchandise was covered, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific cash deposit rate from a completed segment of this proceeding that is currently applicable to the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer of the subject merchandise was covered by this review or a previously completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be 14.74 percent ad valorem, the all-others rate established in the less than fair value investigation. 14 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction or return 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 destruction or return of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

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

On June 30, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the AD order on certain quartz surface products from China. 1 Commerce received a timely request for review of the AD order from Karinastone (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Karinastone), an exporter of the subject merchandise. 2 On August 22, 2025, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), Commerce published the initiation notice in the Federal Register . 3 On September 12, 2025, we notified interested parties that information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) indicated that there were no POR entries of the subject merchandise. 4 Further, on September 22, 2025, we notified interested parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review due to a lack of suspended entries. 5 We received no comments from interested parties regarding our intent to rescind.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of a AD order where it concludes that there are no entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended. 6 Normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the AD assessment rate calculated for the review period. 7 Therefore, for an administrative review to be conducted, there must be a reviewable, suspended entry that Commerce can instruct CBP to liquidate at the calculated AD assessment rate for the review period. 8 As noted above, there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise for the company under review during the POR. Accordingly, in the absence of reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR, we are hereby rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

As Commerce has proceeded to a final rescission of this administrative review, no cash deposit rates will change. Accordingly, the current cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit rate of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the Federal Register .

This notice serves as a final 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, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of the APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with regulations and terms of an APO is a violation, which is subject to sanction.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On July 25, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review the antidumping duty order on glycine from India. 1 On September 10, 2026, Commerce selected Avid Organics Private Limited (Avid) and Mulji Mehta Enterprises (Mulji Mehta) as the mandatory respondents in this review. 2 On October 23, 2025, Avid timely withdrew its request for review of itself;  3 and DPG timely withdrew its administrative review requests for certain companies identified in the Initiation Notice, including Avid. 4 Further, on December 5, 2025, Paras Intermediates Private Limited timely withdrew its review request for itself. 5 On December 9, 2025, Commerce selected Medilane Healthcare Private Limited (Medilane), the only other company subject to this review in addition to Mulji Mehta, as an additional mandatory respondent. 6

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 7 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 8 On December 22, 2025, Commerce extended the time limit for these preliminary results in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A). 9 Accordingly, the deadline for these preliminary results is now May 11, 2026.

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 10 A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as Appendix I to this notice. The Preliminary 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 Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/frnotices.

The merchandise subject to the Order is glycine from India. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested a review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation. As noted above, Commerce received timely-filed withdrawal requests with respect to the companies listed in Appendix II, and no other parties requested an administrative review of these companies. Therefore, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). In addition, Commerce has relied entirely on facts available with adverse inferences under sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act for Medilane Healthcare Private Limited and Mulji Mehta. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025:

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce preliminarily applied adverse facts available with adverse inferences to the individually examined companies, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, there are no calculations to disclose.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice. 11 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 12 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 13

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 14 Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this administrative review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 15

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing. 16

All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, as well as hearing requests, should be filed via ACCESS. 17 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.

If the mandatory respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent) in the final results of this review, Commerce intends to calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales to a particular importer, we will calculate an importer-specific, per-unit assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total quantity of those sales. 18 To determine whether an importer-specific, per-unit assessment rate is de minimis, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we also will calculate an importer-specific ad valorem ratio based on estimated entered values. If the mandatory respondents' weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, or if an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 19

In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the mandatory respondents for which they did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate calculated in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate companies involved in the transaction. 20

For the companies listed in Appendix II for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit rate for estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

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

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for companies listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed companies not covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific cash deposit rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 7.23 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 21 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

On September 11, 2025, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review in the Federal Register . 1 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 2 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filled via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 3 On February 3, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline for the final results of this review an additional 51 days. 4 Accordingly, the deadline for these final results is now May 8, 2026. 5

For a complete description of the events that followed the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 6 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/frnotices.

The merchandise covered by the Order is CTL plate. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

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

Based on our analysis of the case and rebuttal briefs and the evidence on the record, we made certain changes to POSCO's countervailable subsidy calculations from the Preliminary Results. These changes are explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 8 For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv), in March 2026, Commerce conducted verification of the subsidy information reported by POSCO. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant sales and accounting records, and original source documents provided by the respondent. 9

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we determine the following net countervailable subsidy rate exists for the POR January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:

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

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review, for the above-listed company at the applicable ad valorem assessment rate listed for the POR ( i.e., January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023). We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown for the company listed above based on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. 11 For all non-reviewed firms subject to the Order, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific rate or the all-others rate ( i.e., 3.72 percent), as appropriate. 12 These cash deposit requirements, effective upon publication of these final results, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).

On May 5, 2026, Commerce published in the Federal Register the initiation notice of the LTFV investigations on PTMEG from China, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam. 1 In the Initiation Notice, Commerce inadvertently made a typographical error with respect to one of the relevant HTSUS subheadings in the appendix, “Scope of the Investigations.”

In the Federal Register of May 5, 2026, in FR Doc. 2026-08727, 2 on page 24168, in the second column, correct the third HTSUS subheading referenced in the fourth paragraph of the section “Appendix—Scope of the Investigation” as follows:

The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 3907.29.0000. Subject merchandise may also be imported under HTSUS subheadings 2932.11.0000 and 3404.90.5150. Although the HTSUS subheading and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

For a full description of the scope of these investigations, revised to reflect the correction specified above, see the appendix to this notice.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 732 and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

On July 25, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) from Italy. 1 On July 25, 2025, Commerce selected Dalmine S.p.A. (Dalmine) as the mandatory respondent in this review. 2 On September 12, 2025, Dalmine filed a letter notifying Commerce of its intent not to participate in this proceeding. 3

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 4 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days. 5 Accordingly, the deadline for these preliminary results is now May 11, 2026.

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 6 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/frnotices.

The product covered by this review is cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Italy. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act. Because Commerce preliminarily finds that Dalmine failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to our requests for information, Commerce relied on facts available, with adverse inferences (AFA), in determining this company's dumping margin, consistent with section 776 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025:

Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce preliminarily applied AFA to the individually examined company, Dalmine, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied AFA rate is based solely on the petition, there are no calculations to disclose. 7

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice. 8 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 9 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 10

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 11 Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this administrative review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 12

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing. 13 All submission, including briefs, must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety in ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.

Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.

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

If Commerce continues to base Dalmine's weighted-average dumping margin upon AFA in the final results of this review, then Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on subject merchandise from Dalmine entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the POR at a rate equal to the weighted-average dumping margin in the final results.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Dalmine will be the rate established for Dalmine in the final results of this review (except, if this rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 47.87 percent, the all-others rate established in the underlying LTFV investigation. 14 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On January 8, 2026, Commerce published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of this administrative review of the antidumping duty order  1 on certain hot-rolled steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from the Republic of Korea (Korea), rescinded the administrative review of 46 companies and invited comments from interested parties. 2 This review covers two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel) and POSCO and POSCO International Corporation (PIC) (collectively POSCO/PIC). 3

A summary of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for these final results, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 4 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at https://access.trade.gov/frnotices.

Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products covered by the Order are hot-rolled steel. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and listed in the appendix to this notice.

Based on the comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made no changes for the final results of review.

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

Normally, Commerce discloses the calculations performed in connection with these final results of review to interested parties in an administrative review within five days after public announcement of the final results or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because we have made no changes to the Preliminary Results, there are no calculations to disclose.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.

Because Hyundai Steel's and POSCO/PIC's weighted-average dumping margins are not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, we calculated an importer-specific assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 6 Where an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), the entries by that importer will be liquidated without regard to antidumping duties. 7 The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 8

For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by either of the individually examined respondents for which it did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 9

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

Upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register , the following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of hot-rolled steel from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the companies subject to this review will be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by companies not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the investigation, but the producer has been covered in a prior completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the completed segment for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 6.05 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation. 10 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under the 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.

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

The primary purpose of the GMT and GAP webinars is to prepare for the Pacific Council's June 2026 meeting agenda items. These meetings are expected to focus on groundfish agenda items, including stock assessment process review and proposed process revisions and inseason management.

A detailed agenda for each webinar will be available on the Pacific Council's website prior to the meeting. The GMT and GAP may also address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT and GAP.

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

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

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

The CIE will review the eastern Bering Sea Tanner crab stock assessment. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version and meeting materials will be posted at https://github.com/noaa-afsc/TannerCrab_2026CIEReview.

On January 11, 2024, we received a petition from the Wild Fish Conservancy to delineate and list one or more ESUs of Chinook salmon in southern Alaska, which the petition stated “encompasses all Chinook populations that enter the marine environment of the Gulf of Alaska,” as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and to designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. The petition indicated that this “includes all populations on the southern side of the Aleutian Peninsula, Cook Inlet, and the coast of Alaska south of Cook Inlet to the southern end of the Alaska/British Columbia border,” hereafter referred to as GOA Chinook salmon. The petition asserted that GOA Chinook salmon are threatened by all of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: (A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address identified threats; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)). The petition is available online (see ADDRESSES ).

On May 24, 2024, NMFS published a 90-day finding that the petition, viewed in the context of information readily available in our files, presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted (89 FR 45815). NMFS also announced the initiation of a status review of GOA Chinook salmon, as required by section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, and opened a 60-day comment period to solicit pertinent information to inform the status review. In response to public requests, NMFS extended the comment period an additional 45 days (89 FR 53936, June 28, 2024). We received information from the public in response to the 90-day finding. Additionally, information gathered from Tribal participants during Tribal Consultations and Subsistence Regional Advisory Council meetings informed our analyses. All relevant information was incorporated into the Status Review Report (GOA Chinook SRT 2026; available electronically (see ADDRESSES )) and this 12-month finding.

NMFS is responsible for determining whether a species under our jurisdiction meets the definition of threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). To make this determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms constitutes a species under section 3 of the ESA, then whether the status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines species to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature” (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). In 1991, we issued the Policy on Applying the Definition of Species Under the ESA to Pacific Salmon (ESU Policy; 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). Under the ESU Policy, a Pacific salmon population is a distinct population segment (DPS), and hence a species under the ESA, if it represents an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the biological species. Under this policy, a Pacific salmon population unit must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU: (1) it must be substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units, and (2) it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. The first criterion, reproductive isolation, need not be absolute, but must be strong enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to accrue in different population units. A population would meet the second criterion if it contributes substantially to the ecological and genetic diversity of the species as a whole. The ESU Policy is used exclusively for evaluating whether a population unit of Pacific salmon qualifies as a DPS under the ESA. A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; jointly, the Services) policy clarifies the Services' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). In announcing this policy, the Services indicated that the ESU Policy was consistent with the DPS Policy and that NMFS would continue to use the ESU Policy for Pacific salmon.

Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C. 1532(6), (20)). Thus, we interpret an endangered species to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A threatened species is not presently in danger of extinction but is likely to become so within the foreseeable future.

When we consider whether a species qualifies as threatened under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term, foreseeable future. Our implementing regulations describe the foreseeable future as extending into the future as far as we can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats (50 CFR 424.11(d)). The regulations instruct us to describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best available data and taking into account considerations such as the species' life history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. The regulations also state that we need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time.

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened as a result of any one or a combination of the following factors: (A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make listing determinations solely on basis of the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation or political subdivision thereof to protect the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). In evaluating the efficacy of existing domestic conservation efforts that have yet to be implemented or demonstrate effectiveness, we rely on the Services' joint Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE; 68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003).

NMFS formed an SRT comprised of biologists from the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center and the NMFS Alaska Region to conduct the status review of GOA Chinook salmon. NMFS charged the SRT with reviewing and evaluating the best scientific and commercial data available relating to GOA Chinook salmon biology to determine if any populations or groups of populations met the criteria to qualify as ESUs, and if so, to assess the extinction risk to each potential ESU. Two scientists from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and a Tribal liaison were included in the SRT review process as advisory, non-voting SRT members (which means they participated in the process except for the SRT's final assessment of extinction risk). The Status Review Report, prepared by the SRT, summarizes the best scientific and commercial information available on GOA Chinook salmon distribution, abundance, life history, genetics, and biology. Based on this information, the Status Review Report: identifies ESUs and outlines reasoning for how they were chosen; evaluates the demographic factors (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity); identifies threats or stressors affecting the status of the species; and describes management, mitigation, and conservation efforts. The Status Review Report presents the SRT's risk matrix results, which assigns an estimate of risk caused by each demographic factor and threat/stressor to each stock and assigns overall risk for each ESU, incorporating the extinction risk faced now and in the foreseeable future. The SRT then evaluated each ESU's overall extinction risk (high, moderate, or low) using a qualitative risk assessment framework that incorporates all demographic factors and threats/stressors, acting together, throughout the range of the ESU. The SRT then conducted a similar analysis for the significant portion of its range for each ESU. The Status Review Report presents the SRT's professional scientific judgement on the extinction risk facing each of the potential ESUs but makes no recommendation as to their listing status. The Status Review Report also incorporates information received in response to our request for information (89 FR 45815, May 24, 2024), Tribal outreach and engagement, and comments from four independent, external peer reviewers (see Peer Review below).

We subsequently reviewed the Status Review Report, its cited references, and the peer reviewer comments, and concluded that the Status Review Report, upon which this 12-month finding is based, provides the best available scientific and commercial data on GOA Chinook salmon. Much of the information discussed below on GOA Chinook salmon biology, ESU structure, demographics, threats, and extinction risks is attributable to the Status Review Report. However, in making the 12-month finding determination, we independently applied the statutory provisions of the ESA, including evaluation of the factors set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E), regulations regarding listing determinations (50 CFR part 424.11), and relevant policies identified herein.

Chinook salmon ( O. tshawytscha ) were historically distributed from the Ventura River in California to Point Hope, Alaska in North America, and in northeastern Asia from Hokkaido, Japan to the Anadyr River in Russia (Healey 1991). Additionally, Chinook salmon have been reported in the Mackenzie River area of northern Canada (McPhail and Lindsey 1970). Of the Pacific salmon, Chinook salmon exhibit arguably the most diverse and complex life history strategies across their range. Healey (1986) described 16 age categories (combinations of freshwater and saltwater ages) for Chinook salmon: 7 total ages, with 3 possible freshwater ages. As described by Gilbert (1912), stream-type or yearling Chinook salmon reside in freshwater for a year or more following emergence, whereas ocean-type or sub-yearling Chinook salmon migrate to the ocean within their first year. According to the best available data, nearly all populations of Chinook salmon in Alaska comprise individuals from the stream-type life history (Taylor 1990; Lewis et al., 2015). However, one population (Situk River) contains primarily ocean-type individuals (Johnson et al., 1992), and other populations ( e.g., Keta River, Blossom River) contain some proportion of ocean-type individuals (Pahlke 2001; Fleischman et al., 2011). While there have also been some historical observations of ocean-type individuals in the Deshka River (Delaney 1982), more recent data (2005-2014) show no ocean-type individuals observed based on scale data from returning adults (Lescanec 2017).

The generalized life history of Pacific salmon involves incubation, hatching, and emergence in freshwater; migration to the ocean; and subsequent initiation of maturation and return to freshwater for completion of maturation and spawning. Additionally, some young male Chinook salmon mature in freshwater (minijacks), thereby forgoing emigration to the ocean. Minijacks have been documented only through hatchery work in Alaska, but have been anecdotally observed in some wild populations in Southeast Alaska. Salmon exhibit a high degree of variability in life history traits, which are determined by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Many of these traits appear to have a substantial genetic component (Carlson and Seamons 2008), and some appear to be largely controlled by variation at a few or single genomic regions (Barson et al., 2015; Pearse et al., 2019; Thompson et al., 2020, Barry et al., 2024).

Several types of biological evidence were considered in evaluating the contribution of GOA Chinook salmon to the ecological and genetic diversity of the biological species under the ESA. Life history traits examined for naturally spawning Chinook salmon populations included freshwater life history, age and size at spawning, river-entry timing, spawn timing, and ocean migration. These traits are thought to have both a genetic and environmental basis, and similarities among populations could indicate either a shared genetic heritage or similar responses to shared environmental conditions.

ESUs have not been previously defined for Chinook salmon in the GOA. Consistent with the criteria outlined in the ESU Policy, the SRT considered neutral genetic data analyzed for spawning populations in this region for the reproductive isolation criterion, supplemented by inferences about barriers to migration created by environmental differences and habitat breaks. The SRT also considered information on ocean distribution and, to a lesser extent, information on life history variation. Based on this information, the SRT defined the following three ESUs (complete information regarding ESU delineation can be found in the Status Review Report): (1) Southeast Gulf of Alaska (SEGOA: populations from the southern border of Alaska to Cape Fairweather), (2) Central Gulf of Alaska (CGOA: populations from Cape Fairweather through Prince William Sound), and (3) Northwest Gulf of Alaska (NWGOA: populations from the Kenai Peninsula through Chignik).

The SEGOA ESU includes populations from the Chilkat River in northern Southeast Alaska to the Keta and Blossom Rivers entering Behm Canal in southern Southeast Alaska near the northern coastal border of British Columbia. Chinook populations in the SEGOA ESU are part of the eastern genetic lineage and are highly genetically diverged from the closest populations to the north (Alsek River), which are part of the western genetic lineage (Templin et al., 2011). Populations from the SEGOA and the Alsek River are also separated by a large geographic distance (350 km waterway distance). Populations at the southern end of this ESU (Keta and Blossom Rivers) are separated from the nearest populations to the south in Portland Inlet across the U.S. border in British Columbia by approximately 150 km. Although some straying may occur among Chinook salmon populations in southern Southeast Alaska and British Columbia, these groups are largely genetically isolated. Therefore, we find that the SEGOA ESU is substantially reproductively isolated from other ESUs. Fish from the Taku and Stikine Rivers, classified as outside rearing, primarily rear in the GOA and Bering Sea, and are rarely captured in inside waters as immature fish. Contrastingly, other stocks in SEGOA are classified as inside rearing, and a portion of them rear in SEGOA inside waters and are caught as immature fish in this region; some also use the GOA and Bering Sea as rearing habitat. This ESU contains four primary genetic groups: Chilkat River, King Salmon River, Taku and Stikine Rivers, and the short, coastal streams in southern Southeast Alaska. We find that the SEGOA ESU contributes substantially to the ecological and genetic diversity of the species as a whole. Therefore, we find that the SEGOA ESU meets the definition for an ESU as described in the ESU Policy.

The CGOA ESU includes populations from the Copper, Situk, and Alsek Rivers. Populations from the Copper River are highly genetically differentiated from Cook Inlet populations to the north, and from Southeast Alaska populations to the south. Copper River populations are also isolated by major habitat breaks. To the north, populations from the Copper River are separated from the closest populations on the Kenai Peninsula (~500 km away) by Prince William Sound, a rugged, mountainous region that does not contain any self-sustaining Chinook salmon populations. To the south, Copper River populations are separated from the Situk and Alsek Rivers by an area of rugged coastline containing glacially influenced rivers that do not contain any large, known populations of Chinook salmon, although there may be some small populations in this region. The Situk and Alsek Rivers are the only two rivers monitored for escapement by ADF&G with self-sustaining Chinook salmon ( i.e., no hatchery supplementation) in an 800 km region that spans from the Copper River to the Chilkat and Taku Rivers in Southeast Alaska. Both of these populations appear to be recently colonized based on genetic data, which is unsurprising given the dynamic nature of this landscape characterized by shifting glaciers. Therefore, we find that the CGOA ESU is substantially reproductively isolated from other ESUs.

The Situk River is the only known population in the GOA that is composed primarily of ocean-type individuals. The SRT determined that grouping the Alsek River populations in the same ESU as the Copper River populations was appropriate, given their genetic similarity and the fact that no conspicuous life history differences exist between the lower Copper River and Alsek River populations. Contrastingly, the Situk River is unique both in terms of life history (ocean type) and genetics (intermediate between many populations). However, the SRT did not conclude that it constitutes an evolutionarily unique population because it may have been recently recolonized from strays from many populations, may undergo periodic extinction and recolonization events, and/or may be a sink for strays that prevents it from evolving independently. The SRT therefore chose to group it in the CGOA ESU, which has the most geographically proximate populations. We find that the CGOA ESU contributes substantially to the ecological and genetic diversity of the species as a whole. Therefore, we find that the CGOA ESU meets the definition for an ESU as described in the ESU Policy.

The NWGOA ESU includes populations from the Chignik River on the South Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island (Ayakulik and Karluk Rivers), and Cook Inlet (includes the Susitna drainage and populations on the Kenai Peninsula). Populations from this ESU rear in the GOA and the eastern Bering Sea, according to the best available information. The ESU boundaries correspond to habitat breaks and genetic breaks. Populations from the North Alaska Peninsula inhabit relatively low gradient coastal tributaries that drain flat tundra areas, whereas the South Alaska Peninsula is much more rugged and mountainous. Populations in Cook Inlet at the other margin of the ESU are separated from populations in the Copper River by Prince William Sound, which contains steep mountains and glaciers that do not provide suitable habitat for self-sustaining populations of Chinook salmon.

Although genetic differences exist among populations from the Kenai Peninsula, Cook Inlet, and the South Alaska Peninsula, these differences are generally smaller than those found between ESUs. Additionally, distributional breaks in this region are generally smaller than the break between other ESUs, with the exception of the habitat break between Chignik and Kodiak. Furthermore, there is no evidence that different genetic subgroupings within this ESU contain unique life history diversity that is important to maintaining the evolutionary legacy of the species. Therefore, splitting this ESU further is not warranted. We find that the NWGOA ESU is substantially reproductively isolated from other ESUs. We also find that the NWGOA ESU contributes substantially to the ecological and genetic diversity of the species as a whole. Together, these factors indicate that the NWGOA is a single ESU that meets the definition for an ESU as described in the ESU Policy.

After identifying the three ESUs, the SRT evaluated the best scientific and commercial data available regarding four demographic viability factors: abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. These factors, rooted in conservation biology, represent the key attributes of a viable salmonid population and collectively serve as strong indicators of extinction risk (McElhany et al., 2000). For each ESU, the SRT evaluated the demographic factors and their trends. The SRT summarized their conclusions for each ESU and each indicator stock within each ESU (stocks are populations of salmon grouped together for management purposes such as harvest accounting, assessment, and reporting) in the risk matrix results. Indicator stocks, for the purpose of the SRT's assessment, were those for which escapement data were available. See Status Review Report. These results informed our conclusions about the viability of each ESU.

For each ESU, the SRT first considered abundance. Producing an overall estimate of total abundance for salmon ESUs is a complex process due to their anadromous nature, multiple life stages, and multiple stocks. Run size estimates represent the estimated number of returning adults (specifically wild Chinook), which is an appropriate measure of stock abundance. The SRT was provided minimum estimates for each of the 22 stocks for which run size data exist from ADF&G. These data are presented in the Status Review Report. For the SEGOA and NWGOA ESUs, the SRT also estimated the minimum estimated annual return of wild adult Chinook salmon between 2010 and 2023, based on ADF&G-provided run reconstruction data for the major Chinook systems. Because the SRT generated these estimates to compare to the estimated annual returns of hatchery adults, results are not available for the CGOA, which does not host any Chinook-producing hatcheries. The SRT also considered a study that compared the relative abundance of different stocks among areas by scaling the proportion of each stock from a mixed stock sample to the overall abundance of that stock (Larson et al., 2013). This method produces coarse estimates, reported below for each ESU, and the SRT used this study to indicate that the SEGOA and NWGOA ESUs have relatively similar abundances, while the CGOA ESU's abundance is roughly one-third lower than the other two.

To investigate trends in the abundance of GOA Chinook salmon, the SRT focused on two primary questions: Have there been any short-term (15-year periods) declines in abundance across the available data? And have there been any long-term (full time series, since 1980) declines in abundance across the available data? To address these questions, the SRT analyzed the 31 stocks monitored by ADF&G within the three ESU designations. While similar reviews conducted by other SRTs across the Pacific Northwest have identified escapement data as the most reliable metric of the available data for such assessments (Ford 2022, OC and SONCC SRT 2024), the SRT distinguished between escapement data (a productivity measure of the number of salmon that survive to spawn) and escapement goals, which are a management target. Escapement goals (the number of fish allowed to escape the fishery and spawn) in Alaska are designed for sustained yield, not as thresholds for population viability. As described above, run size estimates provide a more accurate estimate of minimum abundance and are a better metric to assess population trends. However, run size estimates, which integrate harvest and escapement data, were available for only 22 stocks.

As noted above, for each ESU, the SRT also considered productivity. As described above, escapement is one measure of productivity. They also considered size and age at maturity. These data do not exist at the stock level for every indicator stock, which precluded a comprehensive assessment of these metrics at the ESU level. Therefore, the SRT considered available literature on changes in size and age at maturity more broadly in the GOA as a whole. Reductions in size can potentially reduce productivity through decreases in fecundity and/or egg quality (Oke et al., 2020; Malick et al., 2023), and smaller females may not be able to dig deep enough redds to reduce susceptibility to scouring (Healey 1991). Reduction of age diversity could increase variation in abundance and decrease portfolio effects and population stability (Schindler et al., 2010). For stocks with run size estimates, the SRT also performed a depensation analysis. Depensation (also known as Allee effects) refers to a decline in productivity at low abundance. Mechanisms for depensation include impaired reproduction (difficulty finding mates) and predator saturation. Results from the depensation analysis were highly variable, and no significant trends were found. See the Status Review Report for details.

Finally, the SRT considered the spatial distribution and diversity of each ESU. Spatial distribution includes geographic range and connectivity. Diversity includes genetic, habitat, and life history diversity.

The SEGOA ESU exhibits a large total abundance. Using mixed stock analyses, Larson et al. (2013) estimated a total stock size of 181,000 salmon in Southeast Alaska and Northern British Columbia, grouped in this study due to poor genetic resolution. The SRT estimated a minimum annual return of 53,000 wild adult Chinook salmon in the SEGOA ESU. The ESU includes 25 indicator stocks, and run size data are available for 9 representative indicator stocks.

Overall trends in abundance do not indicate long-term decline for the ESU. Short-term declines have been observed in certain stocks; these patterns are highly variable, but are within the historical variability and have either stabilized or begun to rebound in recent years. Evaluating escapement and run size for each stock, the SRT found little support for sustained, long-term declines ( i.e., the 50 and 90 percent credible intervals overlapped with zero). Short-term analyses indicate a high degree of variability over space and time. There have been recent declines in estimated total run size and spawning escapements for several stocks within the SEGOA ESU, particularly since the early 2000s and 2010s. For example, run size and escapement have decreased in systems such as the Chilkat, Unuk, King Salmon, Stikine, and Taku Rivers. However, the stocks in King Salmon, Taku, and Chilkat Rivers have shown early signs of recovery in the most recent 5-year period. For most stocks, long-term trend estimates indicate that these short-term declines largely fall within the range of historical variability. See the Status Review Report for stock-specific results. There is some synchrony ( i.e., correlation among run size and/or escapement trends) among stocks.

To evaluate productivity, the SRT first considered escapement. As described above, the data do not support a long-term, sustained decline in escapement for the ESU. Mean age and size-at-age have declined over the past 20-25 years (Lewis et al., 2015; Ohlberger et al., 2018; Oke et al., 2020). In particular, the abundance of the oldest age classes has declined. Additionally, the size at age of older age classes (3 to 5 years in the ocean) has decreased, while the sizes of younger age classes (1 to 2 years in the ocean) have increased (Ohlberger et al., 2018). The SRT analyzed the missed escapement goals and evidence of decreasing size and age at maturity, potential threats specifically identified in the petition and 90-day finding, and found that these measures of productivity remain within the range for viable populations. We agree.

The SEGOA ESU demonstrates broad spatial distribution with spawning populations in numerous rivers and creeks throughout Southeast Alaska. Seasonally, immature fish from this ESU are distributed throughout the GOA and Bering Sea. Genetic data generally support four primary groupings within the ESU: Chilkat River, King Salmon River, Taku and Stikine Rivers, and the short, coastal streams in southern Southeast Alaska. In general, population structure follows an isolation by distance pattern and is organized hierarchically by major river systems. The SRT found, and we agree, that spatial distribution is unlikely to contribute significantly to, and is likely a buffer against, the ESU's risk of extinction.

The SEGOA ESU demonstrates high genetic diversity. Despite genetic isolation among some rivers, there is limited evidence of reduced genetic diversity in stocks. For example, while the King Salmon River stock displays relatively lower genetic diversity, this is consistent with a small, stable population size across many generations. Thus, concerns regarding reductions in genetic diversity or inbreeding are minimal. Habitat diversity is also high. Some populations occupy shorter, coastal streams, while others occur in rivers that traverse the coastal mountain range. Spawning populations in the Taku and Stikine rivers are found in upland plateaus. This diversity makes it highly unlikely that a single catastrophe could impact the entire ESU. Therefore, the SRT found, and we agree, that diversity is unlikely to contribute significantly to, and is likely a buffer against, the ESU's risk of extinction.

The CGOA ESU exhibits a large total abundance. Using mixed stock analyses, Larson et al. (2013) estimated a total stock size of 89,000 salmon in Copper, Situk, and Alsek Rivers. The SRT estimated a minimum annual return of 103,865 wild adult Chinook salmon. The ESU includes three indicator stocks with run size data for each. Trends in abundance indicate an overall stable population trajectory, with no strong evidence of sustained declines across the ESU. Evaluating escapement and run size for each stock, the SRT found little support for sustained, long-term declines ( i.e., the 50 and 90 percent credible intervals overlapped with zero). The largest stock, Copper River, has exhibited increasing escapement over multiple decades. Short-term analyses of the Alsek and Situk stocks indicate reductions since the early 2000s; however, recent abundance estimates are similar to long-term median values. A notable characteristic of the CGOA ESU is the lack of strong interannual synchrony among stocks for both escapement and run size.

To evaluate productivity, the SRT first considered escapement. As described above, the data do not support a long-term, sustained decline in escapement for the ESU. Similar to the SEGOA ESU, mean age and size-at-age have declined over the past 20-25 years (Lewis et al., 2015; Ohlberger et al., 2018; Oke et al., 2020). After analyzing missed escapement goals and evidence of decreasing size and age at maturity, the SRT concluded that productivity remains within the range for a viable population. We agree.

The CGOA ESU demonstrates broad, albeit patchy, spatial distribution. This has led to significant population structure within the ESU. Populations spawn in the upper, middle, and lower Copper River, which are genetically differentiated. While the Alsek stock is genetically similar to the lower Copper River populations, the Situk stock is genetically unique. The Situk and Alsek stocks were likely recently colonized, possibly as glaciers shifted. The SRT found, and we agree, that spatial distribution is unlikely to contribute significantly to, and is likely a buffer against, the ESU's risk of extinction.

Although smaller and with fewer stocks than the other two ESUs, the CGOA ESU exhibits high diversity. Spawning habitats range from recently deglaciated rivers in rugged mountainous terrain to upland highlands draining tundra. Its life history characteristics are also diverse. The Situk River stock is the only population in Alaska composed primarily of ocean-type Chinook salmon. Genetic diversity includes fine-scale adaptive variation among Copper River populations. This diversity makes it highly unlikely that a single catastrophe could impact the entire ESU. Therefore, the SRT found, and we agree, that diversity is unlikely to contribute significantly to, and is likely a buffer against, the ESU's risk of extinction.

The NWGOA ESU exhibits a large total abundance. Using mixed stock analyses, Larson et al. (2013) estimated a total stock size of 131,000 salmon in the South Peninsula and Cook Inlet. The SRT estimated a minimum annual return of 103,865 wild adult Chinook salmon. The ESU includes 19 indicator stocks with run size data available for 10 of them.

Run size and escapement data provide evidence for long-term declines in several stocks of the NWGOA ESU. For these stocks, the 95 percent credible intervals overlapped with zero, but the 50% credible intervals were negative. Short-term analyses indicate that many stocks, including Alexander Creek, Deshka River, Theodore River, Ninilchik River, and Karluk River, have experienced significant reductions in escapement in recent decades. Similarly, declines in run size have been observed in several stocks, including the Anchor River, Kenai River (early and late runs), East Susitna, Talkeetna, and Yentna Rivers. While these declines have persisted over multiple 15-year periods, some stocks show signs of stabilization, though at lower abundance levels than historical averages. The degree of decline varies by system, with some stocks exhibiting gradual reductions while others have shown more abrupt decreases, particularly in the early 2000s. There is some synchrony ( i.e., correlation among run size and/or escapement trends) among stocks. The SRT expressed concern over abundance trends in this ESU. However, the declining trend is buffered by the number of stocks (19) and the overall large abundance of the ESU. For these reasons, the SRT concluded, and we agree, that abundance is unlikely to contribute significantly to the ESU's risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. The SRT found that the small abundance of Theodore River may significantly influence the long-term persistence of this stock. However, this stock is small and is geographically located near 12 other stocks in the Upper Cook Inlet. Therefore, this stock did not substantially influence or determine the SRT's risk assessment for the abundance of the NWGOA ESU as a whole.

To evaluate productivity, the SRT first considered escapement. As described above, the data indicate a long-term, sustained decline in escapement for multiple stocks within the ESU. Similar to the other ESUs, mean age and size-at-age have declined over the past 20-25 years (Lewis et al., 2015; Ohlberger et al., 2018; Oke et al., 2020). Although missed escapement goals and shifts toward smaller, younger fish indicate reduced productivity, the magnitude and nature of these changes are not consistent with conditions that would place the ESU at risk of extinction. Escapement goals are designed to optimize yield rather than define viability thresholds, and thus viable populations may miss escapement goals repeatedly without necessarily reaching the point of elevated risk of extinction. Accordingly, the SRT concluded based on both current numbers and observed trends in escapement that population viability is not threatened within the foreseeable future. We agree.

The NWGOA ESU demonstrates broad spatial distribution. It occurs in numerous rivers and creeks, across multiple major watersheds (Susitna, Kenai, Karluk, Chignik), and throughout Cook Inlet, the Kenai and South Alaska Peninsulas, and Kodiak Island. Seasonally, immature fish from this ESU are distributed throughout the GOA and eastern Bering Sea. Genetic data generally indicate three primary groupings within the ESU: South Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak Island, northern Cook Inlet, and Kenai Peninsula. There may be additional population sub-structuring within these groups. The SRT found, and we agree, that spatial distribution is unlikely to contribute significantly to, and is likely a buffer against, the ESU's risk of extinction.

The NWGOA ESU demonstrates high genetic diversity. There is also temporal diversity in run timing. The Kenai Peninsula group contains some late run populations in the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers that spawn 4 to 6 weeks later than other populations in these systems. Habitat diversity is also high. Populations on the South Alaska Peninsula inhabit rugged coastal rivers that drain from mountainous regions and contain large lakes. Populations in northern Cook Inlet inhabit a myriad of low-lying coastal streams or tributaries. This diversity makes it highly unlikely that a single catastrophe could impact the entire ESU. Therefore, the SRT found, and we agree, that diversity is unlikely to contribute significantly to, and is likely a buffer against, the ESU's risk of extinction.

As described above, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that we must determine whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any one or a combination of the following factors: the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The SRT evaluated whether and the extent to which each of the foregoing factors contributes to the overall extinction risk of the GOA chinook salmon ESUs. The SRT summarized their conclusions for each ESU and each stock in the risk matrix results. See Status Review Report. This informed our conclusions about whether the ESUs are threatened or endangered because of any one or a combination of these factors.

In all three ESUs, a large portion of land is protected at the state or Federal level, ranging from approximately 40 to 80 percent, depending on the ESU. Due to these protections and the regulatory measures described below, many habitats in the corresponding watersheds are in good condition. Therefore, much of the ESUs' habitat remains intact and, given existing regulatory mechanisms, is expected to remain so in the foreseeable future.

To assess present and threatened modification of habitat, the SRT focused on human activities that can have adverse impacts on the different life history stages of Chinook salmon in watersheds within the boundaries of the three ESUs. The intensity of the various activities differs among ESUs, though the impacts are largely the same. In particular, the SRT quantified land use (timber harvest, agriculture, oil and gas extraction, and mining) and urbanization (including proximity to cities, population size, roads and culverts, and dams) that may negatively impact the ESUs and their habitat at present and through the foreseeable future (GOA Chinook SRT 2026).

Although not at a large scale, timber harvest occurs in the ranges of all three ESUs. Some of the primary concerns associated with timber harvest are erosion, removal of streamside vegetation, water quality degradation, and the construction of roads and culverts (Limpinsel et al., 2023). Impacts may include smothering salmon eggs, impeding fish passage, altering stream temperature, or reducing in-stream habitat complexity (Limpinsel et al., 2023). However, the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act and the U.S. Forest Service plans for the Tongass and Chugach National Forests aim to minimize the impacts of timber harvest on fish habitat. These laws and guidelines include designing roads and culverts in ways that minimize impacts to streams, preserving vegetated buffers along streams, and reforestation (USDA 2016; USDA 2020; ADNR 2017). The SRT found that land use for active timber harvest is less than 0.01 percent in SEGOA habitat and less than 0.1 percent in NWGOA habitat. There is no active timber harvest in CGOA habitat. Given the minimal exposure to timber harvest and guidelines in place to reduce impacts to Chinook habitat, we find timber harvest to be a low risk to habitat for all three ESUs.

Mining also occurs in the ranges of all three ESUs. Mines may negatively impact water quality, including through the leaching of heavy metals and other contaminants into river systems (Sergeant et al., 2022). Active mines are limited in each ESU such that the ESU-wide risk from any localized reduction in water quality is considered minimal. Additionally, most mines are not located near Chinook-bearing streams, and there are regulations in place to reduce the impact of mining on fish habitat. Thus, we find mining to be a low risk to habitat for all three ESUs.

Two more land uses with potential impacts are agriculture and oil and gas extraction. These land uses are found only in the NWGOA watersheds and are not present in the CGOA or SEGOA watersheds. Agricultural areas can lead to both physical habitat loss and reductions in water quality (Limpinsel et al., 2023) but are minimal throughout the state and primarily concentrated in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley and some parts of the Kenai Peninsula in the NWGOA. Oil and gas extraction can lead to habitat alteration and pollution (Limpinsel et al., 2023), but these activities are limited to Cook Inlet in the NWGOA. Due to their absence in the CGOA and SEGOA ESUs, the SRT found that agriculture and oil and gas extraction poses no risk to habitat for these ESUs. While these land-uses do occur in the NWGOA, they are limited in magnitude and spatially-restricted. Thus, agriculture and oil and gas extraction pose a low risk to habitat for the NWGOA ESU.

Multiple aspects of urbanization present threats to fish and fish habitat, including physical loss of habitat and increased runoff from impervious surfaces, often containing pollutants (McCarthy et al., 2008; Limpinsel et al., 2023). Road development extends these impacts from impervious surfaces and is also associated with the construction of culverts that may block or impede fish passage (Limpinsel et al., 2023). Dams, including hydropower facilities, may also block or impede fish passage, in addition to altering flow and water temperature (Limpinsel et al., 2023). While large areas of land in the ranges of all three ESUs remain undeveloped or minimally developed, the NWGOA ESU experiences significantly more impacts from urbanization in comparison to the SEGOA and CGOA ESUs. However, even within NWGOA habitat, increased urbanization impacts remain limited to a few systems in the Cook Inlet area, and habitat within the ESU as a whole is largely intact.

As described in detail in the Status Review Report, and summarized here, the SRT reviewed all present or threatened impacts to the ESUs' habitat and range. The SRT reviewed such impacts for each stock and overall for each ESU. The data demonstrate that exposure to such threats is limited due to the limited development across the broad spatial distribution of each ESU. Each ESU retains predominantly intact habitats such that potential impacts to the ESU have not materialized and are not likely to materialize in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the SRT found it unlikely that habitat threats contribute significantly to each ESU's extinction risk, now or in the foreseeable future. We agree that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of each ESU's habitat or range is a low-level threat.

For this review, the SRT analyzed 133 years (1890-2022) of GOA Chinook salmon harvest estimates (GOA Chinook SRT 2026). Since marine harvests are often mixed stocks, stock-specific estimates were derived by subtracting spawning escapement from total run size. Historical harvest levels are strongly influenced by regulations and management actions, meaning harvest levels do not necessarily indicate overall stock abundance or health.

Harvests occur across various fisheries (commercial, recreational, subsistence, etc. ) and are conducted using multiple methods ( e.g., purse seine, gillnet, troll). Contemporary data comes from ADF&G reports and databases, reports on bycatch in federally managed groundfish fisheries, and the Cook Inlet EEZ Area fishery (since 2024). Data are largely collected by ADF&G and attributed to their management areas, which do not align with the ESUs identified herein, so the SRT focused on stock-specific data that could be attributed to stocks within the ESUs. These data represent the best available scientific and commercial information.

Overall, for the time series, the mean annual harvest of GOA Chinook salmon was 423,484 fish, the median harvest was 410,237 fish, and the average harvest over the last 10 years was 434,081 fish. The maximum harvest was 992,000 fish in 1937, and the minimum was 0 fish harvested in 1892. Overall, harvests appear to be variable but stable (neither increasing nor decreasing) since the 1960s. Commercial catch accounts for the majority of the harvest, followed by sport, groundfish bycatch, and subsistence. The SRT estimated harvest for each stock for which both run size and escapement data were available. See the Status Review Report for stock-level results.

Chinook salmon harvest estimates for stocks associated with the SEGOA ESU are complex, involving a mixture of stocks from Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, as well as various gear types and fisheries within ADF&G's Southeast Alaska Region. Available data varies, with some reports providing total estimated Chinook harvests by fishery ( e.g., Hagerman et al., 2022) and others offering stock-specific breakouts for SEGOA and non-SEGOA stocks (Peterson et al., 2024). The SRT focused on stock-specific harvest estimates for the nine indicator stocks representative of the 25 known Chinook stocks in the SEGOA ESU, noting that these estimates are confined to large fish or a specific size/age class, consistent with escapement goals. For untagged stocks, surrogate harvest rates from nearby hatcheries, such as the ACI (Andrew Creek/King Salmon River) and AKB (Blossom/Chickamin/Keta Rivers) indicators produced by the Pacific Salmon Commission Chinook Technical Committee, are used for run reconstruction, where total run is calculated as escapement divided by the mature run equivalent exploitation rate, with adjustments for differences between hatchery indicators and wild stocks.

Historical harvest information for Chinook salmon associated with the CGOA ESU, focused on the three indicator stocks: the Alsek, Situk, and Copper Rivers. The Alsek and Situk rivers drain into the marine waters of ADF&G's Yakutat Management Area, part of ADF&G's Southeast Alaska Region. The Copper River drains into the marine waters of ADF&G's Copper River District, which is part of ADF&G's Central Region (encompassing Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and Bristol Bay management areas).

The SRT provides Chinook salmon harvest estimates for the NWGOA ESU, which encompasses indicator stocks and associated harvests in ADF&G's Central Region and Westward Region. The NWGOA ESU includes ten Chinook salmon indicator stocks, but the disparate management boundaries used by ADF&G's Divisions of Sport and Commercial Fisheries, such as the Commercial Fisheries Division's Central Region versus the Sport Fish Division's larger Southcentral Region, complicate harvest reporting. Nevertheless, this assessment attempts to compile complete harvests across all management boundaries and fisheries.

Across ESUs, estimates of stock-specific Chinook salmon harvests and harvest rates (harvest relative to total run size) have generally declined in recent years, when compared to historical rates, likely as management actions have restricted fisheries in response to lower levels of Chinook salmon abundance. However, for some stocks in the SEGOA ESU, harvest rates have been relatively high during the last decade (see section 7.3 of the Status Review Report).

Chinook salmon originating from the GOA are caught incidentally in the GOA and Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Federal groundfish fisheries, especially in the pollock pelagic trawl fishery. Salmon are considered a prohibited species catch (PSC) in groundfish fisheries, and cannot be retained for sale or personal use (50 CFR 679.7; 50 CFR 679.21). These fish are counted and sampled by fisheries observers (none are released), and some are retained for seafood donation programs. Nearly all salmon taken as bycatch in these fisheries are Chinook salmon or chum salmon. To limit the amount of bycatch of Chinook salmon, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) and NMFS have implemented mandatory Chinook salmon PSC limits, apportioned by fishery sector; the attainment of a PSC limit results in the closure of the responsible fishery. Other Chinook bycatch reduction measures in place for the GOA groundfish fisheries include the use of gear modifications ( i.e., salmon excluder devices) and incentive plan agreements designed to incentivize vessel operator avoidance of Chinook bycatch.

The estimated average number of GOA-origin Chinook salmon incidentally caught in the Federal Bering Sea (mainly in summer) and GOA groundfish fisheries each year from 2010 to 2023 averaged 1,081 fish (range = 198-2,336) and 3,325 fish (range = 1,633-5,857) respectively. The primary Chinook salmon stocks bycaught in these fisheries between 2011 and 2023 were from the SEGOA and NWGOA ESUs, with annual bycatch averaging 2,755 fish (range = 1,810-4,091) from the SEGOA ESU and 1,416 fish (range = 500-4,333) from the NWGOA ESU. Stocks from the CGOA ESU were rarely encountered in these fisheries (2011-2023 yearly average = 234, range = 35-646). A small number of Chinook salmon originating from the GOA are also caught as bycatch in state-managed non-salmon fisheries ( e.g., state-managed trawl fisheries; <1,000 fish annually between 2008 and 2023, with an annual average of 275 fish), and many of those salmon are likely from stocks outside the GOA (ADF&G 2024). Because bycatch rates are low for GOA stocks, we consider impacts of bycatch on abundance and productivity to be limited and thus presents a low risk to each ESU.

As described in detail in the Status Review Report, and summarized here, the SRT reviewed all available catch and bycatch data for each ESU. Overall, the SRT found that current state and Federal management practices are effective for managing GOA Chinook stocks in a way that mitigates the risk of overutilization (GOA Chinook SRT 2026). Therefore, the SRT found it unlikely that overutilization contributes significantly to each ESU's extinction risk, now or in the foreseeable future. We agree that overutilization is a low-level threat.

Infectious disease is one of many factors that influence adult and juvenile salmon survival. Chinook salmon are exposed to numerous bacterial, fungal, protozoan, viral, and parasitic organisms in spawning and rearing areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and the marine environment. However, no indigenous or emerging exotic diseases have been identified as threats to Chinook salmon in the GOA (GOA Chinook SRT 2026). Additionally, the State of Alaska has a robust fish health monitoring program and strict protocols to minimize transmission of diseases between hatchery and wild fish, including Chinook salmon (ADF&G 2026).

Salmon are an integral part of the food web, and predation on salmon naturally occurs at all salmon life stages in both freshwater and marine environments. Predation occurs from a variety of native piscine, avian, and mammalian species. In the marine environment, it has been hypothesized that the broadly observed demographic changes ( e.g., decline in age at maturity) in Chinook salmon could be due to size-selective predation by sharks or marine mammals. However, based on the synthesis of a suite of studies detailed in the Status Review Report, there is no direct evidence that predatory impacts are outside normal ecosystem dynamics and imperiling the long-term existence of GOA Chinook salmon populations.

The introduced northern pike ( Esox lucius ) is the only freshwater predator identified as a potential threat to early life stages of GOA Chinook salmon, but their impact is limited to only certain systems in the NWGOA ESU. Although northern pike have driven declines in the Alexander Creek stock, the state and its partners have multiple management strategies for eradication and suppression, particularly in high-impact areas such as the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, and Mat-Su Valley (Dunker et al., 2022). The use of rotenone treatments has increased, and in conjunction with fish salvage programs, native salmonids are being reintroduced into lakes where pike populations have been eradicated. Improved gillnetting strategies, with year-round monitoring efforts, have led to significant reductions in pike densities in targeted lakes. Experimental exclusion barriers are being installed in critical migration corridors to prevent pike from entering high-priority salmon habitats. Long-term monitoring and mitigation efforts are planned to ensure that restored salmon populations remain stable and viable in previously impacted watersheds (Dunker et al., 2022).

The SRT concluded that current state management practices are effective for mitigating the risk of northern pike predation (GOA Chinook SRT 2026). Therefore, the SRT found it unlikely that predation and disease contribute significantly to each ESU's extinction risk, now or in the foreseeable future. We agree that disease and predation are low-level threats.

Numerous regulatory mechanisms exist to protect GOA Chinook salmon from present and future impacts of threats. The SRT reviewed each of these existing regulatory mechanisms in detail. See Status Review Report. In the paragraphs below, we summarize their findings.

A wide array of Federal, state, Tribal, and local laws, regulations, and treaties currently and effectively address the survival and habitat quality of GOA Chinook salmon. Fisheries management is primarily conducted by the State of Alaska and is supplemented by state and Federal policies governing subsistence and personal use. Federally, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act governs marine fisheries, includes provisions to designate Essential Fish Habitat, and requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on actions that may impact that habitat. Additionally, Chinook hatchery propagation is guided by state policies aimed at maintaining wild stock genetic integrity, preventing disease spread, and prioritizing wild stock conservation in mixed-stock fisheries.

Land and water management across the GOA region involves significant Federal oversight. The U.S. Forest Service, USFWS, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service manage millions of acres that overlap with Chinook watersheds, with management plans that include objectives for fish and fish habitat protection. Federal water regulation is fairly comprehensive, with statutes such as the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act providing authority to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to regulate activities such as wetland filling, the discharge of dredged material, and construction in navigable waters. Furthermore, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates non-Federal hydropower under the Federal Power Act, which grants NMFS the authority to issue mandatory prescriptions for fish passage and to recommend other measures to protect anadromous salmon and to improve their habitat.

State and local agencies also play a crucial role in regulating salmon habitat. ADF&G enforces the Anadromous Fish Act, requiring permits for activities in essential anadromous waters. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) administers laws like the Alaska Forest Resources and Protection Act, setting standards for protecting fish habitat and water quality. Locally, many boroughs and the Municipality of Anchorage enforce development setbacks from anadromous streams. On Tribal lands, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations manage substantial acreage with varied priorities, while Tribal Conservation Districts and Tribes actively work to conserve and restore salmon habitat for cultural and subsistence use. Internationally, the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Boundary Waters Treaty foster cooperation between the U.S. and Canada on salmon management and transboundary water protection, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Acts address large projects in transboundary streams.

The SRT reviewed all existing regulatory mechanisms relevant to GOA Chinook and concluded that none are inadequate to such an extent that they are posing a threat to any of the ESUs. For example, land use regulatory mechanisms reduce the impacts of timber harvest, mining, agriculture, and oil and gas extraction. Fisheries management reduces the impact of overutilization. Northern pike eradication and prevention measures reduce the impact of predation. The extensive proactive management strategies and measures in place to protect and monitor Chinook salmon allow management to respond long before population viability is threatened. Thus, the SRT found it unlikely that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms contributes significantly to each ESU's extinction risk, now or in the foreseeable future. We agree that this is a low-level threat.

Increasing environmental variability observed throughout the range of GOA Chinook salmon is a challenge for maintaining stock productivity and predictability. Trends of increased environmental variability include observations of pronounced changes to hydrologic structures and processes in GOA Chinook salmon freshwater systems, and increased prevalence and severity of marine heatwaves. See the Status Review Report for details. Such trends are likely to continue in the foreseeable future.

Recent climate vulnerability assessments for salmon indicate that some populations exhibit moderate-to-high vulnerability to increased environmental variability, depending on their life history, geographic location, and habitat use (Crozier et al., 2019). Changes in freshwater temperature, flow variability, and marine prey availability all contribute to their vulnerability. Chinook salmon, which exhibit extended freshwater rearing and extensive marine migrations, are considered to be among the more sensitive salmon species (Crozier et al., 2019). The SRT found that environmental variability poses the greatest threat to GOA Chinook of all threats considered, and continued monitoring of environmental changes and responses to these changes in Chinook salmon is warranted. However, the SRT did not find any stock nor any ESU to be at high or moderate risk of extinction ( i.e., now or in the foreseeable future) due to changing environmental conditions. Please see the Status Review Report for details. Below, we summarize their reasoning.

Within the GOA river systems, there have been documented widespread premature mortality of salmon in some years due to high water temperatures and drought conditions (von Biela et al., 2022); however, GOA Chinook salmon were not among these premature mortality observations. It has also been posited that deglaciation may increase available spawning habitat for Alaskan salmon (Pitman et al., 2020; Pitman et al., 2021). Climatic variability is estimated to be more impactful to Alaska stream fishes compared to other anthropogenic stressors ( e.g., land use or fire; Murdoch et al., 2020). However, it should be noted that actual hydrologic changes in GOA freshwater landscapes will be impacted by local factors, such as vegetation, fine-scale topography, and wind (Littell et al., 2018); therefore, the timing, magnitude, and ecological consequences of these transitions will vary depending on microclimate, watershed physiography, and elevation. The SRT considered all of these conditions in its risk assessment of each stock and overall for each ESU. While environmental variability has localized impacts in some cases depending on the individual river system, the SRT found it unlikely that environmental variability contributes significantly to each ESU's extinction risk, now or in the foreseeable future. While it will likely increase over time, we agree that this is a low-level threat now and in the foreseeable future.

Concerns regarding hatchery and wild salmon interactions generally fall into three categories: (1) genetic and epigenetic interactions, (2) spatial competition for freshwater habitat, and (3) competition for food resources (Naish et al., 2008). Typically, the first category references intraspecific interactions, while the latter two categories may refer to either intraspecific or interspecific interactions, particularly with large-scale hatchery releases of pink or chum salmon.

Hatchery-reared salmon populations are at risk of genetic and phenotypic change (Grant 2012). Changes in hatchery-reared salmon can occur through domestication selection, inbreeding, genetic drift, epigenetic modifications, or a combination of these mechanisms. These changes can affect genetic diversity, individual fitness, population productivity, and probability of extinction (Keller and Walker 2002; Frankham 2005; O'Grady et al., 2006; Kardos et al., 2016). Of the five species of Pacific salmon propagated in Alaska hatcheries, Chinook salmon may be the most vulnerable to hatchery influences due to the extended rearing time typically required before their release into the marine environment. However, the extended rearing time and resources required ( e.g., food, water, personnel) also make Chinook the least propagated species of anadromous salmonid in Alaska hatcheries (Wilson 2024). The comparatively low release numbers, coupled with the ADF&G Genetic Policy (Davis et al., 1985), likely reduce the potential for hatchery Chinook to adversely impact wild stocks. However, the degree of risk may vary between ESUs.

Spatial competition or habitat displacement of wild Chinook salmon by hatchery-origin fish during their juvenile, freshwater life history stages are unlikely in the GOA, as hatchery-origin Chinook are released as smolts to begin their marine migration. However, spatial competition or habitat displacement of adult wild Chinook by adult hatchery-origin fish on the spawning grounds may be more likely. Such intraspecific spatial competition has been documented outside of Alaska, particularly in areas where hatchery release ( i.e., imprinting) sites are near wild stocks. Interspecific spatial interactions between wild Chinook and more abundant hatchery species, like chum and pink salmon, which have higher stray rates, are also possible. Generally, species-specific redd site requirements, habitat partitioning, and temporal differences in spawn timing reduce the likelihood of this type of interspecific competition (Fukushima and Smoker 1998; Geist et al., 2002; Quinn 2005; Beechie et al., 2008). However, data gaps exist regarding potential intraspecific and interspecific spatial competition, so increased monitoring of localized impacts of stray hatchery fish on wild populations is warranted.

The spread of disease from hatchery fish to wild stocks is also a concern. Within Alaska hatcheries, several management strategies and health policies implemented by ADF&G's Fish/Shellfish Health Program exist to prevent transmission of new pathogens to wild stocks as well as to surveil existing, emerging, and exotic disease agents (ADF&G 2026). The State of Alaska's Fish Health and Disease Control Policy (5 AAC 41.080) is designed to prevent the spread of infectious diseases in fish and shellfish (Evenson et al., 2018). It mandates rigorous health protocols for hatcheries, including disinfection of salmon eggs transported between watersheds, regular inspections of hatchery facilities, and detailed disease reporting and isolation measures to control disease spread.

The SRT concluded that current state management practices are effective for mitigating risks caused by hatcheries. Therefore, the SRT found it unlikely that hatcheries contribute significantly to each ESU's extinction risk, now or in the foreseeable future. We agree that hatcheries present a low-level threat.

Based on the best scientific and commercial data available on each of the demographic and ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, the SRT completed a risk matrix for each stock and ESU. Following the assessment of stock-level demographic factors and threats using this risk matrix approach, each team member independently evaluated the overall extinction risk for each ESU as low, moderate, or high (defined below). To accommodate individual uncertainty and support a representative expression of expert opinion, the team applied the “likelihood point” method, commonly referred to as the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) approach, based on its use in the FEMAT process (FEMAT 1993). Under this method, each reviewer allocated 10 likelihood points across the 3 risk categories to represent their confidence in the ESU's true status. For example, a reviewer confident in a low-risk classification might assign all 10 points to that category, while a reviewer with greater uncertainty could distribute points across 2 or all 3 categories. This approach has been used in most anadromous Pacific salmonid status reviews since 1999. The three risk levels have been used in prior Pacific Northwest salmonid species reviews with minor wording changes (Stout et al., 2012; Ford 2022; OC and SONCC SRT 2024).

• High Risk: A species or ESU with a high risk of extinction is at or near a level of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and/or diversity that places its continued persistence in question. The demographics of a species or ESU at such a high level of risk may be highly uncertain and strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes. Similarly, a species or ESU may be at high risk of extinction if it faces clear and present threats ( e.g., confinement to a small geographic area; imminent destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat; or disease epidemic) that are likely to create imminent and substantial demographic risks.

• Moderate Risk: A species or ESU is at moderate risk of extinction if it is on a trajectory that puts it at a high level of extinction risk in the foreseeable future (see description of “High risk” above). A species or ESU may be at moderate risk of extinction due to current and/or projected threats or declining trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. The appropriate time horizon for evaluating whether a species or ESU is more likely than not to be at high risk in the foreseeable future depends on various case- and species-specific factors. For example, the time horizon may reflect certain life history characteristics ( e.g., long generation time or late age-at-maturity) and should also reflect the time frame or rate over which identified threats are likely to impact the biological status of the species or ESU ( e.g., the rate of disease spread). The appropriate time horizon is not limited to the period that status can be quantitatively modeled or predicted within predetermined limits of statistical confidence. The biologist (or Team) should, to the extent possible, clearly specify the time horizon over which it has confidence in evaluating moderate risk.

• Low Risk: A species or ESU is at low risk of extinction if it is not at moderate or high level of extinction risk (see “Moderate risk” and “High risk” above). A species or ESU may be at low risk of extinction if it is not facing threats that result in declining trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. A species or ESU at low risk of extinction is likely to show stable or increasing trends in abundance and productivity with connected, diverse populations.

The extinction risk determination reflects the informed professional judgment of each SRT voting member, based on a synthesis of available information. This assessment was structured around a risk matrix framework that integrated demographic risk indicators with anticipated interactions among threats and other relevant factors, now and in the foreseeable future. For a detailed explanation of the risk matrix framework methods, see section 8 in the Status Review Report. The foreseeable future was defined as a period of 25 to 40 years, corresponding to approximately 5 to 8 generations of GOA Chinook salmon. This timeframe extends as far into the future as the SRT could make reasonably reliable predictions about threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. The SRT based this timeframe on the availability of comprehensive demographic data for each ESU and the projected impacts of environmental variability, ocean conditions, and freshwater habitat trends on GOA Chinook salmon viability. Further justification of this timeframe can be found in Section 8.2 of the SRT report (GOA Chinook SRT 2026).

The SRT concluded, and we agree, that the SEGOA ESU is at low risk of extinction now and for the foreseeable future, throughout its range. Of 90 points total, the SRT assigned 87 points to low extinction risk and three points to moderate extinction risk, reflecting their confidence in this conclusion.

The SEGOA ESU exhibits a large total abundance based on mixed-stock analyses and the minimum estimated annual return of wild adult Chinook salmon. The ESU includes 25 stocks, nine of which have estimated run sizes and escapements in the thousands. These data do not indicate sustained, long-term declines in abundance for the ESU. Many SRT members emphasized that although short-term declines have been observed in certain stocks, these patterns are highly variable, fall within the historical variability, and have either stabilized or begun to rebound in recent years. Productivity has also declined but has remained within limits for viable salmon populations. Further buffering the SEGOA ESU from extinction risk are high spatial distribution and diversity, which includes genetic, habitat, and life history diversity. In conclusion, the risk matrix evaluations across the demographic factors (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity) were uniformly low.

Next, the SRT considered the threats caused by the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, individually and combined. They found it unlikely that the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, individually or combined, contribute significantly to the extinction risk of the ESU. Instead, the SRT found that estuarine and freshwater habitats remained in relatively pristine condition. Hatchery influence, predation, and overutilization occur at low levels. While productivity, habitat quality, and diversity and connectivity among populations were key factors supporting a low-risk determination, several SRT members acknowledged environmental variability as the most pressing emerging threat to this ESU. Concerns included shifts in streamflow patterns, reduced snowpack, increased peak flows, and marine heatwaves, all of which could negatively impact key life stages. However, these climate-related risks were generally viewed as insufficient to conclude that the ESU is likely to become endangered within the next 25-40 years, alone or in combination with other threats. Some SRT members assigned a small portion of likelihood points to the moderate risk category to reflect uncertainty about future environmental impacts, particularly in glacially influenced systems such as the Taku and Stikine. Nonetheless, SRT members agreed that current management actions, low levels of other threats ( e.g., hatchery influence, predation, overutilization), and demographic resilience support the conclusion that this ESU is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout its range.

The SRT concluded, and we agree, that the CGOA ESU is at low risk of extinction now and for the foreseeable future, throughout its range. Of 90 points total, the SRT assigned 87 points to low extinction risk and three points to moderate extinction risk, reflecting their confidence in this conclusion.

The CGOA ESU exhibits a moderately large total abundance based on mixed-stock analyses. The ESU includes three stocks; in addition, the largest stock (Copper River) is composed of numerous metapopulations that provide demographic and spatial resilience. There is little evidence for sustained, long-term declines for the ESU overall. The Copper River stock abundance has been increasing over multiple decades. Short-term analyses of the Alsek and Situk stocks indicated reductions since the early 2000s; however, recent abundance estimates are similar to long-term median values and fall within historical variability. Productivity has also declined but remained within limits for viable salmon populations. Further buffering the CGOA ESU from extinction risk are high spatial distribution and diversity, which includes genetic, habitat, and life history diversity. In conclusion, the risk matrix evaluations across the four demographic factors (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity) were uniformly low.

Next, the SRT considered the threats caused by the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, individually and combined. They found it unlikely that the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, individually or combined, contribute significantly to the extinction risk of the ESU. Instead, the SRT found that habitat conditions remain largely intact. Predation and overutilization occur at low levels. While the overall risk was low, several SRT members acknowledged environmental variability as the most pressing emerging threat to this ESU, particularly related to environmental variability and potential ecological isolation among populations. Environmental-related concerns included altered hydrology, warming stream temperatures, and changing marine conditions, which may impact key life stages and reduce productivity over time, but not to the point of endangering the ESU within the foreseeable future. Some SRT members assigned some points to the moderate-risk category, citing environmental variability and past declines as justification for acknowledging uncertainty about the ESU's long-term trajectory. Additionally, concerns were noted about limited buffering capacity due to the isolation of populations and potential ecological risks from hatchery programs. However, these factors were generally not considered sufficient to elevate the extinction risk above the low category due to low levels of all factors, considered alone or in combination. Within this ESU, high levels of diversity and habitat intactness, combined with recently stable or increasing trends in abundance and productivity, support the conclusion that this ESU is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout its range.

The SRT concluded, and we agree, that the NWGOA ESU is at low risk of extinction now and for the foreseeable future, throughout its range. Of 90 points total, the SRT assigned 75 points to low extinction risk and 15 points to moderate extinction risk, reflecting their confidence in this conclusion, which is slightly lower than their confidence in the conclusions for the other ESUs.

The NWGOA ESU exhibits the largest total abundance of all GOA ESUs based on mixed-stock analyses and the minimum estimated annual return of wild adult Chinook salmon. The ESU includes 19 stocks, most of which have estimated run sizes and escapements in the thousands. There is moderate evidence (negative 50 percent confidence intervals, but the 95 percent confidence intervals overlap with zero) for declines in multiple stocks within the ESU. Some stocks also exhibit signs of demographic stress. Despite these declines, abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity all remain high, providing resilience and buffering against future threats. With one exception (abundance in Theodore River, a small stock in Upper Cook Inlet), the risk matrix evaluations across the four demographic factors (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity) were low.

Next, the SRT considered the threats caused by the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, individually and combined. Environmental variability was identified as the most prominent overarching threat to the ESU, with additional cumulative stressors including predation by invasive northern pike, habitat impacts associated with urban development, and ecological risks from hatchery interactions, particularly in Cook Inlet and other road-accessible watersheds.

While these risks warrant continued attention within the NWGOA ESU, there are numerous measures in place that mitigate them. Within Cook Inlet, the state has management strategies for controlling the expansion of the northern pike, an escapement-based management approach for addressing demographic stress, and habitat protections for urbanization impacts. These risks, mitigated by current actions, do not rise to a level that would place the ESU beyond the low-risk category. The SRT's inclusion of a few moderate-risk points reflects some uncertainty regarding the level of risk posed by demographic stress and the potential for cumulative threats to influence long-term outcomes within the foreseeable future of 25 to 40 years. Overall, the SRT's assessment reflects a low extinction risk for the NWGOA Chinook salmon ESU throughout its range. Within this ESU, high abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity in addition to ongoing monitoring, threat mitigation, and proactive management support the conclusion that this ESU is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout its range.

As noted above, the definitions of threatened and endangered species contain the phrase: throughout all or a significant portion of its range (SPR). This phrase provides two independent bases for listing: a species may be endangered or threatened throughout all of its range or a species may be endangered or threatened throughout a SPR. Thus, in construing the statutory definitions of threatened and endangered species, NMFS is required to give independent meaning to the SPR phrase to avoid rendering it superfluous to the “throughout all” language ( see Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136, 1141-45 (9th Cir. 2001)).

A joint USFWS-NMFS policy, finalized in 2014, provided the Services' interpretation of the SPR phrase (SPR Policy; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). It explains that we will use the same standards and methodology to determine whether a species is endangered or threatened throughout a portion of its range that we use to determine if a species is endangered or threatened throughout its range. Further, depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the significance question or the status question first. Regardless of which question we choose to address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to either question, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range. In other words, if we determine that a portion of the range is not significant, we will not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we will not need to determine if that portion was significant.

Courts have held that the threshold definition of significant contained in the SPR Policy was invalid, stating it set too high a standard to allow for an independent basis for listing species— i.e., it did not give independent meaning to the phrase “throughout . . . a significant portion of its range” ( see, e.g., Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 958 (D. Ariz. 2017); Desert Survivors v. Dep't of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1069-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018)). However, those courts did not take issue with the fundamental approach of evaluating significance in terms of the biological significance of a particular portion of the range to the overall species. NMFS did not rely on the definition of significant in the SPR Policy when making this 12-month finding. While certain other aspects of the SPR Policy have also been addressed by courts, the policy framework and key elements remain in place, and until the policy is withdrawn, we apply those aspects of it that remain valid.

For salmonids, status reviews generally include detailed population- or subpopulation-level assessments to inform the rangewide extinction risk determination. In these cases, the SPR analysis draws directly from that foundational work, using population-level data to assess whether any portion of the range may independently meet the criteria for listing as threatened or endangered. In other words, the individual stocks within the ESUs comprised the portions that were assessed during the SPR analysis. The SRT took guidance for this process from other recent NMFS salmon status reviews ( e.g., OC and SONCC SRT 2024).

Following the determination of the overall ESU level risk for all three GOA Chinook salmon ESUs, the SRT analyzed individual stocks comprising each ESU as portions to evaluate in the SPR analysis. The SRT used the risk matrix approach, evaluating the demographic and section 4(a)(1) factors for each stock. All factors were found to pose low-level threats or risks, except for one small stock (Theodore River) at one factor (abundance). The SRT found that the low abundance of this stock contributes to its long-term risk of extinction ( i.e., moderate score); however, all other factors fell into the low-risk category, and thus this stock was rated at low-risk for extinction overall. Therefore, the SRT concluded that the Chinook in this portion of the ESU's range are at low risk of extinction now and within the foreseeable future. We agree with this conclusion and find that the NWGOA ESU is not in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout any significant portions of its range. Based on our review of the SRT's assessment, we also conclude that the SEGOA and CGOA ESUs are not at risk of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout any significant portions of their ranges.

In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004) establishing minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to enhance the quality and credibility of the Federal government's scientific information, and applies to influential or highly influential scientific information disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we solicited independent peer review comments on the draft Status Review Report from four scientists selected from the academic and scientific community with expertise in conservation biology, salmonid genetics, stock assessment, and Chinook salmon biology. All peer review comments on the Status Review Report were addressed prior to dissemination of the final version of the report that was referenced for this 12-month finding. The peer review report can be found online at: https://www.noaa.gov/information-technology/biological-status-of-gulf-of-alaska-chinook-salmon.

Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that we make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best scientific and commercial information available, including the petition, public comments submitted on the 90-day finding, the Status Review Report (GOA Chinook SRT 2026), and other published and unpublished information, and have consulted with species experts and individuals familiar with GOA Chinook salmon.

After reviewing the SRT's analysis of reproductive isolation and evolutionary legacy according to the ESU Policy, we identify three ESUs: SEGOA, CGOA, and NWGOA. For each of the three ESUs, we assessed the four demographic factors: abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity. We then evaluated each ESU to determine whether it is endangered or threatened because of any one or a combination of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors. Despite some declines in abundance and productivity, the ESUs exhibit large overall population sizes spread across multiple stocks, viable levels of productivity, broad spatial distributions, and high diversity. As described in the Status Review Report, the habitat of GOA Chinook salmon in all three ESUs remains undeveloped or minimally developed. While the NWGOA ESU experiences more impacts from urbanization than other ESUs, increased urbanization impacts are limited to a few systems in the Cook Inlet area, and habitat within the ESU as a whole is largely intact. Across the three ESUs, current state and Federal management practices specific to harvest and bycatch are effective for managing GOA Chinook stocks in a way that mitigates the risk of overutilization. No indigenous or emerging exotic diseases have been identified as major threats to Chinook salmon in the GOA, and the State of Alaska maintains a robust fish health surveillance program. Predation on GOA Chinook salmon is considered to be within normal ecosystem dynamics, with the exception of invasive northern pike, which is limited to only a few systems in the NWGOA. Comprehensive regulatory mechanisms enforced by Federal, state, and Tribal entities, as well as laws and regulations at the local level, currently and effectively address the harvest, northern pike predation pressure, and habitat quality of GOA Chinook salmon. Other human factors, e.g., risks posed by hatchery interactions, are controlled and well-mitigated through established policies and protocols implemented by the State of Alaska. Natural factors, specifically environmental variability, pose a threat to GOA Chinook salmon, and there is uncertainty about future environmental conditions. However, GOA Chinook salmon are ecologically resilient, and fluctuations in abundance and productivity levels are expected for salmon. Stocks in the SEGOA ESU have experienced short-term and highly variable declines, which have stabilized or have begun to rebound in recent years. High quality habitat as well as the high abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity indicate long-term population viability in this ESU. The CGOA ESU shows an overall stable population trajectory, without evidence of sustained declines. Additionally, high quality, intact habitat and high levels of spatial distribution and diversity support long-term population viability in this ESU. The NWGOA ESU has experienced multiple periods of persistent declines and is currently at lower abundances than historical averages. However, some stocks are showing signs of stabilization. While additional stressors impact the NWGOA ESU, such as predation by invasive northern pike and increased urban development, these stressors are mitigated by dedicated management actions that are likely to continue into the foreseeable future. Large abundance, spatial connectivity, robust spatial structure and diversity, and broad geographic distribution in conjunction with established proactive management strategies, monitoring protocols, and habitat protections support the long-term population viability of this ESU. Therefore, we find that the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, collectively and individually, present a low extinction risk to the SEGOA, CGOA, and NWGOA ESUs of Chinook salmon.

Within each of the three ESUs, we did not find any portion of the range that was both significant and had a high or moderate risk of extinction ( i.e., at risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future). Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that the SEGOA, CGOA, and NWGOA ESUs of GOA Chinook salmon are not in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges, nor likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Therefore, the SEGOA, CGOA, and NWGOA ESUs do not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species and do not warrant listing under the ESA.

This is a final action, and, therefore, we are not soliciting public comments.

A complete list of all references cited herein is available online (see ADDRESSES ) and upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) directs the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking; other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below (see also 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.3, 216.103).

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

On March 14, 2026, NMFS received a request from the USFWS Refuge for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to research, monitoring, and management activities on the South Farallon Islands, Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge off San Francisco, CA. Following NMFS' review of the application, the USFWS Refuge submitted a revised, adequate and complete version on April 9, 2026. The USFWS Refuge's request is for authorization of the take of five species of marine mammals by Level B harassment only. Neither the USFWS Refuge nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity, and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

NMFS previously issued an IHA to the USFWS Refuge for similar work from September 10, 2025, through September 9, 2026 (90 FR 42750). To date, the USFWS Refuge has complied with all requirements ( e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHA, and information on the monitoring results can be found in the Estimated Take section.

The Farallon National Wildlife Refuge consists of several islands designated into four groups: the North Farallons, the Middle Farallons, the South Farallon Islands (the largest group, consisting of Southeast Farallon Island and West End Island), and Noonday Rock. The North Farallons, Middle Farallons, and Noonday Rock were originally designated as the Farallon Refuge by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909 (Executive Order 1043). In 1969, the South Farallon Islands were given Refuge status. Congress further designated all these islands, except for the Southeast Farallon Island, as the Farallon Wilderness Area in 1974 (Pub. L. 93-550). More information on the history and management of the Refuge can be found in the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS, 2009) and on its website ( https://www.fws.gov/refuge/farallon-islands/what-we-do ).

The Farallon National Wildlife Refuge, managed by the USFWS, is encompassed within the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS or Sanctuary), which is managed separately by NOAA's National Ocean Service. The GFNMS encompasses 3,295 square miles (mi 2 ) (8,534 square kilometers (km 2 )) of open ocean and nearshore waters off the California coast, surrounding the Farallon Islands. Originally designated as the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary in 1981 by the Department of Commerce, its boundaries were significantly expanded in 2015 to include waters further north and offshore (80 FR 13077, March 12, 2015).

The proposed activities on the South Farallon Islands are intrinsically linked to the management of the Refuge and the Sanctuary. Since the USFWS Refuge would be the IHA Holder, the research, monitoring, and management activities covered under this proposed IHA would predominantly be carried out by USFWS Refuge staff. Similar but separate research and monitoring activities would be carried out by Sanctuary staff. For the proposed take estimation discussed later, we distinguish the proposed activities for the GFNMS from those for the USFWS Refuge.

Broadly, activities include several management actions ( i.e., island access and transit to and from via small motorboat, sailboat, and helicopter; habitat restoration, facilities upkeep including maintenance, repair, removal, and construction; and cultural resource upkeep) and research and monitoring actions ( i.e., rocky intertidal habitat surveys and sampling, oil spill monitoring). Field personnel and boat/helicopter use may occasionally cause incidental take via behavioral disturbance (Level B harassment) of pinniped species that reside year-round and haul out on the South Farallon Islands.

Management and research activities, some of which are commonly performed by Point Blue Conservation Science (Point Blue), typically occur year-round. However, given a recent shift in resource allocation, staff from the USFWS Refuge and GFNMS are assisting Point Blue in some specific research, monitoring, and management activities, while also performing work mandated under their respective laws ( i.e., the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57, 111 Stat. 1252; 16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq. ) and Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. and 15 CFR part 922, subpart H)). The USFWS Refuge and GFNMS are planning activities primarily for the fall/winter of 2026 to 2027 (September through mid-March).

Specified activities, discussed below, will vary in duration. Island access and resupply efforts, which could be conducted by motorboat or sailboat, are expected to occur about 2 days per month and typically last 1 to 3 hours. Maintenance efforts, necessary for crevice-nesting seabirds and to serve as a disturbance barrier for seabirds, typically occur every few years and are conducted in the winter when California sea lion ( Zalophus californianus ) numbers are lower. These efforts may require removing excess materials ( e.g., old plumbing, electrical conduit, lumber), which are expected to take 1 to 3 days and would require a helicopter or boat. The maintenance, repair, removal, and construction of onshore facilities are expected to take 1 to 2 months of effort, although the effort may be spread over a continuous or non-consecutive period, as this work depends heavily on the contractor and weather. Plant surveys would be conducted over approximately 7 days, sometime between mid-March and early April, and intertidal research and sampling, planned between November 1 and March 15, are expected to last 4 to 5 hours at the survey sites.

Helicopters and small motorized boats/sailboats would be used to transport personnel and supplies on and off the island. Helicopter use would only be from September 1 through March 15 to avoid the breeding season for most of the seabirds and pinnipeds located on the island. Currently, any helicopter use that may be required is planned for October to March to avoid a late-summer surge in California sea lion presence. Boat use is planned when it is safe to do so (less likely in the fall and winter seasons, as storms make boat landings dangerous), which is more likely in the spring/summertime, but some use in the fall/winter may be needed.

The proposed IHA would be valid for the statutory maximum of 1 year from the date of effectiveness, and would become effective upon written notification from the applicant to NMFS, but not beginning later than 1 year from the date of issuance or extending beyond 2 years from the date of issuance. As noted above, the specified activity is expected to occur from September 10, 2026, through September 9, 2027.

The Farallon National Wildlife Refuge consists of 211 acres (0.33 mi 2 ) located near the edge of the continental shelf. The proposed project would occur within the South Farallon Islands, which are located approximately 28 miles (mi; 45 kilometers (km)) offshore of San Francisco, CA, and contain an approximate land area of 120 acres (0.19 mi 2 ) across two islands (Southeast Farallon Island and West End Island) and several smaller islets (see figures 1 and 2). Of all the islands that make up the Refuge, only the Southeast Farallon Island is inhabited and contains infrastructure, as nearly all the proposed activities occur on this island. Southeast Farallon Island has two landings, North Landing and East Landing, where pinnipeds are known to haul out and reside year-round. All specified activities, as described herein, will occur on land (with the exceptions of transit via motorboat and/or helicopter, when needed).

The proposed activities at the South Farallon Islands are directly associated with Refuge and Sanctuary management as well as natural resource research and monitoring. Each is described below.

To access the main island of Southeast Farallon Island, small motorboats/sailboats and helicopters are needed. Typically, personnel and cargo/supplies travel to and from the Southeast Farallon Island by motorboat/sailboat, where they are then transferred to smaller 14-to-20-foot (ft (4.3 to 6.1 meters (m))) motorboats, which are hoisted by a derrick to one of two boat landings ( i.e., East Landing and North Landing). Boat landings occur approximately 2 days per month for supplies and personnel, and typically take between 1 and 3 hours. Each boat landing consists of launching the boat with a single operator and two to four other personnel assisting from land. Loading activities at North Landing would occur at the water level during the intertidal phase, and activities at the East Landing (the primary landing site) would occur using a loading platform raised 30 ft (9.1 m) over the water.

Given resource allocation constraints, the Southeast Farallon Island, which is normally inhabited year-round (and has been for several decades), will likely be vacant for most of the fall and winter period, starting in the fall of 2026. Because of this (as well as stormy weather during the fall/wintertime), boat landings become more difficult and dangerous for field personnel. When the island's support staff is not present, helicopters are the primary means of transporting staff and supplies/cargo on and off Southeast Farallon Island. On Southeast Farallon Island, helicopters are allowed to land at the helipad only from September 1 through March 15 annually, upon receiving appropriate authorization from the USFWS Refuge. For the rest of the year, there is a closure prohibiting helicopter usage. This is to protect sensitive wildlife during their breeding seasons.

To reduce impacts on marine mammals, the USFWS Refuge has developed a flight plan for the helicopter during landings and departures to minimize impacts on wildlife and maximize aircraft and crew safety. Generally, most of the pinniped habitat is located away from the flight path, except for Mussel Flat, which lies near the southwestern flight path and cannot be avoided by USFWS Refuge staff (see figure 3).

Harassment of marine mammals is likely to occur given the presence of people and the use of boats and helicopters (including their presence and noise). Additionally, some California sea lions have been observed hauling out near and on the helipad and may require hazing to safely relocate them. Hazing would occur according to section 109(h) of the MMPA, which exempts the taking of marine mammals by government officials as part of official duties, including for the protection or welfare of marine mammals, as in this case, from the MMPA's prohibition on unauthorized take of marine mammals. Takes of marine mammals resulting from hazing activities are not included in the incidental take proposed for authorization here, and hazing is not discussed further.

Habitat restoration activities would include controlling non-native and invasive vegetation, which is detrimental to nesting seabirds and native vegetation. This invasive vegetation blocks access to existing and potential seabird burrow breeding sites and competes with native species and resources, such as Lasthenia maritima, used by surface-nesting seabirds for nesting materials. Other activities include maintaining artificial habitats specifically constructed for seabirds. Two of these structures provide habitat for seabirds that nest in crevices, while another provides a barrier against disturbance. Two of these artificial habitat structures are located adjacent to the haulout locations for California sea lions and Steller sea lions ( Eumetopias jubatus ). Maintenance for these structures is minimal and only required every few years.

Other restoration activities may include the use or removal of excess materials, such as older plumbing, electrical conduits, lumber, and other infrastructure materials, located throughout Southeast Farallon Island (primarily on the east and south sides of the island). If materials were reused, they would be used to create an artificial seabird nesting habitat in the upland areas away from pinniped haulout areas and habitat. If materials are removed, they would be transported by boat or helicopter (for more bulky/larger materials), which may necessitate hovering for a short period while the cargo is loaded or unloaded.

For all these activities, marine mammals would likely be harassed behaviorally from the presence of humans when collecting and transferring the materials, performing the activities, and from the use of boats/helicopters to remove the materials. USFWS Refuge estimates that approximately 1 to 3 days would be needed to remove excess material by either boat or helicopter.

On Southeast Farallon Island, many aging structures from the 19th and mid-20th centuries still exist and may require work to remove, maintain, repair, or construct. The USFWS Refuge has developed a plan to downsize the infrastructure footprint on the Southeast Farallon Island, which involves removing potentially hazardous structures. Specifically, this would consist of a large demolition and construction project starting in September, during which a large water storage cistern on the east side of Southeast Farallon Island would be dismantled and a new water catchment tank installed. Other major activities include replacing the roof and siding at the North Landing Boathouse and making necessary modifications to the houses--Powerhouse and North Landing Boathouse--to protect against vandalism and storms. This larger project is expected to take approximately 1 to 2 months and may occur either continuously or intermittently in non-consecutive phases. The work needed and the schedule are highly dependent on both the contractor's ability to mobilize and the weather. Additionally, other repairs and activities would occur, including maintenance and repairs to the roofs of houses, the East and North Landing derricks, the photovoltaic system at the Powerhouse, and the septic system. All major work would be expected to occur between September 1 and March 15 to minimize any disturbances to sensitive wildlife, including breeding seabirds and pupping pinnipeds.

Crews and supplies would arrive at the island mainly by helicopter, with some boat support when safe to do so. Any cargo brought over would be delivered to the worksites via wheelbarrows and carts along pre-designated paths. Details on the helicopter and boat transport can be reviewed in the section above.

Marine mammals are expected to be behaviorally harassed by the presence of humans, boats, and helicopters, as well as by the noise of their rotors and motors. The presence of cargo and construction noise ( i.e., not greater than mechanical tools, hammering, etc. ) may also cause behavioral harassment.

Proposed activities for the preservation and evaluation of cultural resources may be undertaken by USFWS Refuge staff or by assisting archaeologists. While the Refuge policy specifically prohibits the removal or destruction of any evaluated historical elements, some elements may need to be repaired or modified. For these activities, staff would need to continue evaluating, removing, or reusing remnants of abandoned infrastructure (most of which was removed after 1969). Generally, these elements are in the more upland areas of Southeast Farallon Island, away from the intertidal and pinniped haulout/pupping areas. However, behavioral harassment of marine mammals may still occur due to human presence around hauled out pinnipeds.

A familiar activity on Southeast Farallon Island, wildlife research and monitoring has been conducted for decades to examine and understand the life histories, populations, diet, productivity, and other ecological aspects of wildlife in the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge. To date, most of the work has been performed by Point Blue. However, as previously mentioned, Point Blue may reduce its presence on Southeast Farallon Island during the fall and winter, and the USFWS Refuge would take over some of these responsibilities. For example, plant monitoring would be conducted in various plots across the island's uplands, with one to three personnel traveling to different plots. These activities are expected to occur primarily between mid-March and early April over 7 days.

If oiled wildlife is discovered on the islands, visits to the shoreline where marine mammals occur may be necessary to obtain proper documentation. This includes searching for oil along the shoreline, searching for and counting oiled wildlife, collecting oiled wildlife, and collecting oil samples.

Lastly, GFNMS staff would continue carrying out their rocky intertidal monitoring on Southeast Farallon Island to document the density, biodiversity, and condition of the Sanctuary's natural resources. This will continue to build upon over 30 years of long-term monitoring. The sampling at the three sites ( i.e., Blow Hole Peninsula, Dead Sea Lion Flat, and Mussel Flat) requires approximately 4-5 hours. Pinnipeds would be flushed into the water as the tide drops. Each rocky intertidal monitoring plot and transect would be sampled once a year, with each site accessed up to three times by GFNMS staff from November 1, 2026, through March 15, 2027.

For these research and monitoring actions, pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally harassed by the presence of field personnel.

The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures for these aforementioned activities are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding the status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and the behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ), and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ).

Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA 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 (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no mortality or serious injury (M/SI) is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual M/SI from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' Pacific and Alaska SARs. All values presented in table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.