This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (R&O), in MB Docket No. 24-626; GN Docket No. 25-133; FCC 26-14, adopted and released on March 25, 2026. The full text of this document is available by downloading the text from the Commission's website at: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-14A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0503.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule changes contained in the R&O on small entities. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix B of the R&O.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document contains no new or modified information collection requirements.

Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is “non-major” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the R&O to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

1. In the Report and Order (R&O) adopted and released on March 25, 2026, the Commission revises various broadcast radio and television regulations in parts 1, 73, 74 and 76 of title 47 of the CFR. The R&O updates rules to best reflect current application processing requirements, codify existing Media Bureau (Bureau) practices, and remove references to outdated licensing procedures. These revisions further the Commission's continued effort to remove rules and processes that are no longer necessary, and ensure that our rules are clear and functional for licensees and the public.

2. This R&O continues our efforts to update broadcast radio and television rules. In response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 24-126, 90 FR 13432, we received comments and replies from broadcast industry stakeholders who overwhelmingly support the majority of the proposed changes. We received mixed comments in response to our proposal to harmonize processing procedures for minor change LPFM applications with the current processing procedures for minor change full service FM and FM translator applications, and in response to our proposal to revise the informal objection rule to require service of pleadings upon the relevant applicant and objector, limit the number of responsive pleadings, and impose filing deadlines. As detailed below, we adopt 13 of the proposals set out in the NPRM and decline to adopt the two remaining proposals.

3. We amend §§ 1.5000(b), 1.5004(d)(2), 1.30001(d), 1.30004(a), 73.202(a), 73.3700(b)(5)(iv), and 76.66(d)(2)(ii) to replace references to the Bureau's Consolidated Database System (CDBS) electronic filing system with references to the Bureau's new Licensing and Management System (LMS) electronic filing system.

4. We update §§ 73.30(c), 73.45(d)(1), 73.51(c), 73.311(a), 73.512(a), 73.625(c)(4)(i), 73.872(b)(1), 73.875, 73.1670(b), 73.1690(c)(9), 73.3580(d)(2), and 73.5002(b) to update application references from outdated form designations used in CDBS, such as “FCC Form 301,” to conform to current conventions used in LMS such as “FCC Form 2100, Schedule 301.”

5. We update inconsistent terminology in Rule references to the tables governing FM and TV allotments, by amending §§ 1.401, 1.403, 1.420, and 73.3573 to correspond with the standard language used in §§ 73.202, 73.606, and 73.622; and change references in these sections from “FM Table of Allotments” to “Table of FM Allotments;” from “TV Table of Allotments” to “Table of TV Allotments;” from “FM Table of Assignments” to “Table of FM Allotments;” and from “TV Table of Assignments” to “Table of TV Allotments.”

6. In the NPRM, we proposed to eliminate the 10 application cap on the number of applications each applicant could submit in the 2021 NCE FM filing window, as mandated in § 73.503(g) of the Commission's rules. While the filing window has passed, several applications remain pending from the 2021 NCE FM window. We therefore delegate authority to the Bureau to remove § 73.503(g) from our rules once the applications are final and therefore no longer subject to reconsideration or administrative or judicial review.

7. We update our rules for AM station power increases to eliminate the requirement that stations request at least a 20% increase in nominal power; and update AM station classifications to conform to current classifications used in the Class B and Class D definitions in § 73.21(a)(2) and (3) of our rules and international agreements. We amend § 73.3571(e)(1) through (4), to reflect these changes. We also relocate the Note to the text of § 73.3571, to conform with publishing conventions of the National Archives and Records Administration's Office of the Federal Register.

8. We remove obsolete rule language and notice requirements that had been adopted to implement the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction. Because the post-incentive auction transition period concluded on July 3, 2020, post-incentive auction notice provisions are now outdated. We delete the post-incentive auction transition consumer notification requirements in § 73.3700(c) and revise the MVPD notice provisions for ATSC 3.0 stations in §§ 73.3801(h)(4)(i), 73.6029(h)(4)(i), and 74.782(i)(4)(i) by eliminating the extended notice period for repacked stations and removing the reference to the post-incentive auction transition period. In addition, we delete § 73.3700(i), which relates to TV broadcast station operations above channel 37 (614-698 MHz, the so-called “600 MHz Band”).

9. We proposed in the NPRM to codify the existing interpretation of § 73.870(e) that LPFM minor modification applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously filed and, if mutually exclusive, directed to use engineering solutions and good-faith negotiation to resolve the mutual exclusivity. We received conflicting comments in response to the NPRM. While NAB agrees with the NPRM's proposed approach, pointing out that it would make the processing rules consistent with treatment of applications in other similar services, three other commenters oppose the proposal. Several commenters suggest that we should move to a true first-come, first-served approach based on the exact time of day an application is received, since application submission order can be determined using receipt time stamps, a technical capability not previously available in CDBS but now available in LMS.

10. REC also suggests that we broaden the scope of commenters' alternative proposal to apply a receipt time stamp approach to all other services, rather than just LPFM minor modification applications received on the same day. While this alternative proposal goes beyond the scope of the specific rule revisions posed here, we may consider the proposal in a separate future proceeding in which we can fully assess implementing time stamp receipt technology in the context of first-come, first-served procedures for minor modification applications, not just for the LPFM service, but for all services going forward.

11. We decline to codify in the Commission's rules the Bureau's existing interpretation of § 73.870(e) at this time, and the Bureau should continue to rely on existing precedent, as appropriate, whereby LPFM minor modification applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously filed and, if mutually exclusive, directed to use engineering solutions and good-faith negotiation to resolve the mutual exclusivity.

12. We codify in § 73.807(a) and (c) of the Commission's rules the existing interpretation of the term “authorized” stations as including both licensed stations and/or granted construction permits for FM, LPFM, and FM translator stations.

13. In the NPRM we proposed to modify §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c) to state that LPFM applicants must protect FM, LPFM, and FM translator applications submitted prior to a public notice announcing the procedures for an LPFM filing window. The NPRM also proposed to remove the reference to “cutoff FM translator applications” as redundant and potentially confusing.

14. In order to safeguard the integrity of the filing window and the application filing process, the Bureau must retain flexibility and discretion to issue multiple public notices, should circumstances require. More than one public notice may be necessary given the particularities of future application filing windows. Accordingly, we modify §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c) to state that FM, LPFM, and FM translator applications filed prior to the release of the public notice announcing the filing procedures that will apply to any upcoming LPFM application filing window must be protected under these rule sections. We clarify that a public notice which simply announces an upcoming filing window would not terminate protection requirements for prior-filed applications under §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c). We also remove the potentially confusing reference to “cutoff FM translator applications” in § 73.807(c).

15. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to: (1) codify the existing interpretation of the Signature Rule (§ 73.3513), applicable to all broadcast services, that “directors” of corporations may sign applications; (2) expand the definition of who may sign an application on behalf of a corporation, a partnership, and an unincorporated association, to include a “duly authorized employee;” and (3) clarify that the term “signed,” for applications submitted in LMS, includes an electronic signature.

16. We amend § 73.3513 to codify the existing interpretation of the Signature Rule that directors of corporations may sign applications. Prometheus, REC, and Common Frequency all support this addition, and no commenter opposes it. Accordingly, we adopt the change as proposed in the NPRM. Next, we clarify that the term “signed,” for applications submitted in LMS, includes an electronic signature. No commenter opposed this proposal, and we therefore adopt this additional modification to § 73.3513.

17. The NPRM also proposed to expand the Signature Rule to permit a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association to designate a “duly authorized employee,” to sign applications or amendments on its behalf rather than continuing to require a signature from an officer. Prometheus, Public Broadcasters, and Common Frequency support the proposal. Prometheus and Public Broadcasters also make additional suggestions to expand flexibility. REC supports the change only in a limited circumstance.

18. Prometheus agrees that the current rule leads to far too many otherwise qualified organizations having applications dismissed without an opportunity to amend. In conjunction with its endorsement of expanding the Signature Rule and allowing “duly authorized employees” to sign applications, Prometheus encourages the Commission to define the term broadly to “include the part-time, contract, and volunteer roles often held by nonprofit professionals in corporations, associations, and other civic and religious organizations.” Common Frequency also agrees with the option to designate a “duly authorized employee” to sign applications or amendments, and contends that any employee of the organization, or in the case of volunteer nonprofits, any person at the nonprofit with a position title, i.e. “Executive Director” or “Pastor,” should have authority to sign and file an application. Public Broadcasters likewise supports the proposal to allow duly authorized employee signatures and certifications, but requests extension of this flexibility to allow duly authorized employees of governmental entities to sign Commission applications.

19. REC does not generally support expanding the definition of who may sign an application. It states that the Commission must approach this issue from a public interest standpoint that maintains the integrity of the meaning of the signature on the application and the accountability that goes with it, in order to prevent abuse of process. REC counters that, for the integrity of the application, the applicant's organization and the LPFM and NCE broadcast services in general, in the case of corporations, the application signatory must be a person with an attributable interest in the applicant entity, such as an officer or director. However, REC does support allowing a “duly authorized employee” to sign on behalf of a physically disabled board member.

20. We adopt the proposal to expand the definition of who may sign an application on behalf of a corporation, a partnership, and an unincorporated association, to include a “duly authorized employee,” and we adopt the proposed changes to § 73.3513(a). We also revise the Signature Rule to allow a “duly authorized employee” of a governmental entity to sign an application. Additionally, in light of commenters' requests, while we codify the term “duly authorized employee,” we direct the Bureau to interpret the term “employee” broadly, as circumstances may require, to take account of all types of employees (whether paid or unpaid) and the varied roles and positions that each organization and entity may utilize.

21. To address REC's observation that the majority of the applications with Signature Rule defects in the 2023 LPFM window were signed by consultants and technicians that were not under the “direct employ of the organization,” we clarify that the term “duly authorized employee” will therefore not include independent consultants or other third party professionals outside of the applicant organization.

22. In response to the NPRM's proposal, commenters also seek an opportunity to amend or correct Signature Rule violations. REC argues that if an application is dismissed due to a Signature Rule violation, that the application should be eligible for nunc pro tunc reinstatement. We decline to adopt this proposal. We note that the Commission has found that strict adherence to signature requirements is critical in holding applicants accountable for the truthfulness and accuracy of their applications. We anticipate that our broadening of the definition of who can certify and sign an application to include a “duly authorized employee” will significantly decrease the number of Signature Rule violations and application dismissals. Moreover, we are directing the Bureau to interpret the term “employee” broadly. We expect that this expanded processing policy will reduce prospective Signature Rule violations and application signature defects, while at the same time will safeguard the integrity of the Commission's processes that the Signature Rule was designed to protect. We therefore decline to modify the current curative amendment or nunc pro tunc reinstatement procedures for application dismissals for Signature Rule violations.

23. The NPRM proposed to codify the established practice concerning when applicants for new NCE FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permits must give local public notice of their applications. Section 73.3580 of our rules sets out what types of applicants and licensees are required to provide local public notice, what applications trigger the requirement, the timing of the notice, and the content of the notice. The current rule provides that the Commission's release of an “acceptance public notice” of a newly filed application triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation. However, the current rule does not specify all of the ways that the Commission announces tentative selectees for new NCE FM, NCE TV, and LPFM construction permits, and accepts the tentative selectees' application for filing, which can take various forms.

24. Therefore, the NPRM proposal sought to codify the various scenarios under which certain applications are accepted for filing, for purposes of triggering an applicant's local public notice obligation, and proposed to amend §§ 73.3580(a)(1), 73.7002(b), 73.7003(a), and 73.872(a) to indicate that the “acceptance for filing” of tentative selectee(s) in a 307(b) Order, NCE Comparative Points Order, or LPFM MX Tentative Selectee Order, triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation in § 73.3580. The NPRM also proposed to revise § 73.3580(a)(1) to define “an acceptance public notice” as a Commission or Bureau public notice announcing that an application has been accepted for filing, or an equivalent Order accepting for filing applications from a filing window under §§ 73.7002, 73.7003 or 73.872.

25. Accordingly, we: (1) amend § 73.7002(b) to indicate that the “acceptance for filing” of the various tentative selectee(s) in a 307(b) Order triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation; (2) amend § 73.7003(a) to indicate that the “acceptance for filing” of the various tentative selectee(s) in an NCE Comparative Points Order triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation; (3) amend § 73.872(a) to indicate that the “acceptance for filing” of the various tentative selectee(s) in an LPFM MX Tentative Selectee Order or Public Notice, triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation; and (4) revise § 73.3580(a)(1) to define “an acceptance public notice” as a Commission or Bureau public notice announcing that an application has been accepted for filing, or an equivalent Order accepting for filing applications from a filing window under §§ 73.7002, 73.7003 or 73.872.

26. We amend § 73.1635(a)(4) to remove language providing that an initial STA necessitated by technical or equipment problems may only be granted for 90 days with a limited number of 90-day extensions, rather than the full 180-day period permitted for STAs for other reasons. We will also correct a typo in the fourth sentence of paragraph (a)(4) by replacing “expeditions” with “expeditious.” No commenters objected to this change.

27. The NPRM proposed to modify various application processing rules to remove and/or revise references to application processing procedures that are no longer used, including, for example, replacing “tendered for filing” terminology with “filed,” and removing obsolete paper-filing references.

28. These include: § 73.37(c), which addresses application requirements for new AM stations; § 73.3516(e), which sets forth the process for filing a petition to deny during a license renewal proceeding; §§ 73.3526 and 73.3527, which describe required online public inspection file documents; § 73.3573(f)(1), which outlines the processing of FM applications; § 73.3578(a), which concerns amendments to applications; § 73.3591(b), which explains the processing of applications without a hearing; and § 73.3597(b)(2), which addresses the processing of transfer and assignment applications. We also delete all obsolete paper-filing procedure references from § 73.3564(a), and replace the term “tendered for filing” with “filed” throughout § 73.3564. We further delete § 73.3564(c) references to cut-off procedures for reserved band FM NCE applications that have since been eliminated by the Commission in favor of a filing window approach. Lastly, we remove Note 1 to § 73.3522, which reflects amendment processing procedures that have been eliminated with the implementation of electronic filing. We delegate authority to the Bureau to update LMS to display application statuses based on our rules, including the changes adopted herein. The Bureau is instructed to issue a Public Notice once the LMS updates have been completed and explain the system revisions.

29. We consolidate our rules for petitions to deny under a single rule; § 73.3584. Accordingly, we redesignate the revised § 73.3516(e) as a new paragraph (f) to rule § 73.3584. We also replace cross-references to current § 73.3516(e) with references to redesignated § 73.3584(f).

30. In the NPRM, we proposed to: (1) require that informal objections and responsive pleadings be served upon the relevant applicant or objector; (2) limit the type of responsive pleadings that may be filed; and (3) impose filing deadlines for responsive pleadings that aligned with the limitations set for responsive pleadings to petitions to deny.

31. Four commenters support requiring service on the applicant. NAB argues that a service requirement for informal objections will afford opportunity for the applicant to respond and will improve staff processing efficiency without needing to act as an intermediary. Prometheus agrees that informal objectors should notify the applicant and every contact representative by email or surface mail. Public Broadcasters observes that these common-sense updates will provide clarity and improve organization regarding the procedures. Two commenters also propose that service be implemented using LMS, via automatic email notifications to the applicant of any pleadings filed.

32. REC opposes adding any restrictions to the informal objection process, arguing that: (1) informal objections are a critical tool to combat gamesmanship; (2) LPFM and NCE community “watchdogs” use the mechanism to maintain application and service integrity; (3) informal objections allow unsophisticated members of the public to participate without an attorney; and (4) the service requirement is not in the public interest because it would create a barrier to stations' obligation to allow for participation from local listeners. REC also expresses concern that applicants could exploit procedural requirements to get informal objections dismissed.

33. We also received mixed comments regarding the proposal to limit responsive pleading types to one opposition and one reply. REC opposes limiting responsive pleadings to one opposition and one reply because new information may occur outside of the proposed deadlines, and objectors require flexibility with respect to supplemental pleadings. NAB, Public Broadcasters, and Common Frequency agree with limiting the type of responsive pleadings allowed to one opposition and one reply. Similarly, we received mixed support regarding the proposal to implement filing deadlines for responsive pleadings. REC supports use of time limits for responsive pleadings, and NAB supports “appropriate response timelines,” but proposes relaxation of the deadlines for “bona fide” objections filed by inexperienced parties. Common Frequency maintains that pleading time restrictions should only apply to renewal applications, and opposes deadlines for informal objections filed against non-renewal applications.

34. We are persuaded by the concerns REC raises regarding imposing new requirements and restrictions on the informal objection process, and we conclude that the current rule strikes an appropriate balance to promote critical participation from members of the public in our application filing and licensing proceedings. We therefore decline to adopt these specific changes at this time.

35. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Amendment of Parts 1, 73, 74 and 76 of the Commission's rules to Update rules Applicable to Broadcast Stations, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), released in December 2024. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA; however, we discuss relevant comments and related proposals that may impact small entities below. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA and it (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

36. The R&O updates the Commission's rules by revising various broadcast radio and television regulations in parts 1, 73, 74, and 76 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The proposals adopted therein revise rules to best reflect current application processing requirements, codify existing Media Bureau (Bureau) practices, and remove references to outdated licensing procedures. These revisions further the Commission's continued effort to remove rules and processes that are no longer necessary, and ensure that our rules are clear and functional for licensees and the public.

37. Specifically, the R&O: (1) replaces references to the Bureau's legacy Consolidated Database System (CDBS) electronic filing system with references to the new Licensing and Management System (LMS) electronic filing system; (2) updates rules to correspond to the form naming conventions used in LMS; (3) changes table of assignments/allotments references to conform to current standard language; (4) delegates authority to the Bureau to remove a ten application cap adopted for the 2021 Noncommercial (NCE) FM new station application window, upon finality of the remaining NCE FM applications; (5) updates the AM station power increase rules to eliminate the requirement that stations seeking facility modifications request at least a 20% increase in power and to reflect current AM station classifications and other administrative updates; (6) updates the TV rules to remove obsolete language concerning the now-completed incentive auction; (7) codifies in § 73.807 of the Commission's rules the existing interpretation of the term “authorized” stations to include both licensed stations and/or granted construction permits; (8) modifies §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c) of the Commission's rules to clarify that a low power FM (LPFM) applicant submitting an application in a filing window for a new construction permit or modification of an existing LPFM authorization must protect FM, LPFM, and FM translator applications submitted prior to a public notice announcing the procedures for an LPFM filing window; (9) modifies the Signature Rule, which currently states that only officers can sign applications, to allow a “duly authorized employee” to sign, and codifies the existing rule interpretation that directors may sign applications; (10) clarifies the rules concerning when an applicant for a new Noncommercial Educational (NCE) FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permit must give local public notice of its application; (11) removes language limiting grant of certain Special Temporary Authority (STA) submissions to 90 days, rather than the full 180-day period permitted for other reasons; (12) modifies the application processing rules to remove and revise references to various procedures that are now obsolete; and (13) consolidates the rules for petitions to deny license renewal applications under a single rule section.

38. In response to the NPRM, we received comments and replies from broadcast industry stakeholders who overwhelmingly support the majority of the proposed changes. We received mixed comments in response to our proposal to harmonize processing procedures for minor change LPFM applications with the current processing procedures for minor change full service FM and FM translator applications, and in response to our proposal to revise the informal objection rule to require service of pleadings upon the relevant applicant and objector, limit the number of responsive pleadings, and impose filing deadlines. While these two proposals were significant, the record on these proposals is mixed and lacks clear support from commenters. Therefore we decline to adopt these two specific changes in the R&O.

39. Though no comments were filed directly addressing the IRFA, a number of comments were submitted regarding proposals that may impact small entities. We received substantive comments for the following five proposals: (1) updating the AM station power increase rules to eliminate the requirement that stations seeking facility modifications request at least a 20% increase in power, and to reflect current AM station classifications; (2) modifying §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c) to clarify that an LPFM applicant submitting an application in a filing window for a new construction permit or modification of an existing LPFM authorization must protect FM, LPFM, and FM translator applications submitted prior to a public notice announcing the procedures for the LPFM filing window; (3) modifying the Signature Rule to allow a “duly authorized employee” to sign, and codifying the existing rule interpretation that directors may sign applications; (4) clarifying the rules concerning when an applicant for a new NCE FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permit must give local public notice of its application; and (5) removing language limiting grant of certain Special Temporary Authority (STA) submissions to 90 days, rather than the full 180-day period permitted for other reasons.

40. We received a robust record on these five significant proposals. For example, Prometheus, REC, and NAB support the AM power increase rule revisions and agree that the changes would offer increased flexibility to AM broadcasters. NAB also maintains that eliminating the 20% minimum increase in power requirement will help AM stations achieve required community of license coverage, and contribute to the elimination of minimum efficiency requirements for AM stations. Commenters largely support codifying the term “authorized” to include both licensed stations and/or granted construction permits as proposed. REC argued there should only be one public notice released prior to an LPFM filing window, and that it should contain all of the relevant window information and filing procedures. NAB argued that a public notice that only announces future filing window dates should not trigger the rule's protections. We also received varied responses regarding our proposed changes to the Signature Rule. Prometheus and Public Broadcasters support the changes, and feel the term “duly authorized employee” should be interpreted broadly. Public Broadcasters also requested that it be extended to government entities, in order to alleviate the burdensome requirement that a high-level government official must be the signatory. REC opposed our proposed changes, arguing that the signatory must be a person with a presumed attributable interest in the application, such as an officer or director. Prometheus and REC both proposed allowing nunc pro tunc reinstatement and curative amendments for signature rule violations. Regarding when an NCE applicant must give local public notice of its application, REC and Public Broadcasters supported the proposed rule updates. In addition, Prometheus and REC requested that we update LMS to display an “accepted for filing” application status. Lastly, commenters support removing the 90-day grant restriction on technical STAs; NAB agreed that this reduces burdens on both applicants and FCC staff. Public Broadcasters also agreed it would greatly benefit from this extension of the STA term, which is more realistic, given the time it takes to procure and replace technical equipment. We discuss these proposals and other alternatives that minimize the impact on small broadcasters in section F.

41. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, and also provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

42. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the adopted rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.

43. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.

44. The rules adopted in the R&O will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we conclude that the adopted rules will impact a substantial number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the identified industries below.

45. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of adopted rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

46. As discussed above, the R&O updates various broadcast radio and television regulations in Parts 1, 73, 74, and 76 of title 47 the CFR. The proposals adopted in the R&O amend existing rules to better reflect current application processing requirements, codify existing Media Bureau practices, clarify and harmonize rule provisions, and remove references to outdated procedures and legacy filing systems. These included, for example, replacing references to the legacy database system; changing table of allotment references to conform to current language; updating rules to correspond to the application form naming conventions used in the new LMS electronic filing system; updating the TV rules to remove obsolete language concerning the no-completed incentive auction; codifying the existing interpretation of the term “authorized stations” to include both licensed stations and granted construction permits; and consolidating the rules for petitions to deny license renewal applications under a single rule section. The Commission seeks comment on whether any of the burdens associated the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in the NPRM can be minimized for small entities. The Commission is open to considering alternatives to the rules proposed in the NPRM, including but not limited to alternatives that will minimize significant economic burdens on small and other broadcasters.

47. The other rule revisions do not impose additional reporting requirements or compliance requirements for small entities, but rather, reduce and/or clarify compliance burdens. For example, the R&O eliminates the requirement that an AM station requesting to increase power must propose at least a 20% increase in the station's nominal power. Elimination of this requirement will provide AM broadcasters with greater flexibility and thus allow for new opportunities for stations to optimize their technical operations. The R&O also revises the minimum distance separation rule for new and modified LPFM applications to clarify which prior-filed applications must be protected; defines an “authorized station” that must be protected; and clarifies that a public notice that just announces the filing window dates will not serve to terminate protection requirements for prior-filed applications. These clarifications will help small entities understand their compliance obligations, thus reducing the amount of time and financial resources broadcast applicants incur.

48. The R&O further defines the term “acceptance public notice,” which triggers the local public notice obligations for applicants for new NCE FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permits, many of whom are small entities. The rule currently only addresses an application's acceptance for filing vis-a-vis a routinely released LMS Public Notice, but the rule revisions in the Report and Order clarify that certain types of NCE construction permit applications are “accepted for filing” by Orders and documents other than a standard LMS-issued Acceptance public notice. While this change simply codifies an existing interpretation, it will help applicants understand and thus better comply with their local notice obligations.

49. The R&O also removes language providing that an initial STA required by technical or equipment problems may only be granted for 90 days with a limited number of 90-day extensions, rather than the full 180-day period permitted for STAs for other reasons, which will ease the regulatory burden on small entities. Applicants seeking a technical STA currently have to file STA requests twice as often as applicants for other STAs—90 days instead of 180 days. However, as commenters note, station technical problems often require at least 180 days to order equipment and complete the repairs. Therefore, this revision allows stations to reduce their STA filing requirements in half.

50. In addition, the R&O expands the definition of who may sign a certification beyond an officer of the corporation, a partner in the partnership, a member who is an officer of the unincorporated association, or a governmental entity to include a “duly authorized employee,” similar to rules used by other bureaus and offices that allow for directors and authorized employees to sign applications and amendments for the organization. This revision will help small entities avoid signature rule violations, reduce the number of application dismissals, and avoid excessive costs associated with responding to petitions to deny.

51. All of the above changes will promote application efficiency and shorter application processing times. In determining the economic impact and projected compliance requirements for small and other entities, in the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the costs and benefits associated with the proposals made in the NPRM. However, no commenters directly addressed this inquiry.

52. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities. . .including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”

53. In the NPRM, the Commission considered alternatives such as retaining the existing rules, while taking steps to amend other related rules to further improve the accuracy of the CFR, many of which may minimize the impact of the regulations on small broadcasters. For example, in proposing to revise the Signature Rule, we considered whether to permit a “duly authorized employee” to sign for the corporation, partnership or unincorporated association, or, in the alternative, to maintain our current rules requiring officers, partners, or members who are officers to sign, which often results in application dismissals. Public Broadcasters noted that, for governmental organizations, the current rule is burdensome and requires signatures from high-level officials in large organizations, which are often difficult to obtain. We therefore considered adding “duly authorized employee” to the rule defining who may sign on behalf of a governmental entity applicant. We also considered whether we should limit “duly authorized employee” to specific employees, and how this decision, if adopted, might impact small broadcasters that may not be represented by counsel. In the R&O, to minimize the impact on small and other entities, and to prevent dismissal of applications for signature rule violations, the Commission now allows duly authorized employees to sign applications on behalf of partnerships, corporations, unincorporated associations, and governmental entities. We also considered updating our processing procedures to allow for curative amendments or nunc pro tunc reinstatement procedures to remedy signature rule violations, but ultimately declined to do so because strict adherence to signature requirements is critical in holding applicants accountable for the truthfulness and accuracy of their applications. We anticipate that the increased processing flexibility for signature rule compliance will ease compliance burdens for small entities and result in a significant reduction of rule violations.

54. We similarly considered leaving the technical STA filing requirement at 90 days, but based on comments, decided that revising the rule, to the allow for the full 180-day period permitted for STAs for other reasons, would result in fewer burdens and application processing obligations. NAB agreed with this approach, noting that it reduces burdens on both applicants and staff. Public Broadcasters also noted that applicants will greatly benefit from this revision because the longer term more realistically reflects the time it takes to procure and replace defective technical equipment. Commenters generally agreed with our proposal to update the AM station power increase rules to eliminate the requirement that stations seeking facility modifications request at least a 20% increase in power, which will reduce compliance burdens for these small entities.

55. As discussed in section B, REC and NAB proposed certain modifications to the prior-filed application protections found in §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c) of the Commission's rules. We did not adopt those alternatives because the modifications in the Report and Order clarify that a public notice, which simply announces an upcoming filing window, would not terminate protection requirements for prior-filed applications under the applicable rules.

56. Lastly, we declined to adopt the proposal in the NPRM to codify the existing interpretation of § 73.870(e) that LPFM minor modification applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously filed and, if mutually exclusive, directed to use engineering solutions and good-faith negotiation to resolve the mutual exclusivity. There was a general lack of support from commenters, with some alternatively proposing that the Commission move to a true first-come, first-served approach based on the exact time of day an application is received. This alternative goes beyond the scope of the rule revisions posed in this proceeding, and will not be adopted at this time.

57. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy and will publish a copy of the Report and Order, and this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or summaries thereof) in the Federal Register .

58. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, and 336, this Report and Order is adopted and shall become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

59. 47. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, and 336, the Commission's rules are amended as set forth in Appendix A and such amendments shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

60. It is further ordered that the Media Bureau is delegated authority to remove § 73.503(g) in accordance with the terms set forth herein.

61. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.

62. It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director, Performance Program Management shall send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

63. It is further ordered that should no petitions for reconsideration or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, MB Docket No. 24-626 shall be terminated, and the docket closed.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 73, 74, and 76 as follows:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order ( Report and Order ) and Order on Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 21-455, CC Docket No. 02-6; FCC 26-30, adopted on April 30, 2026 and released on May 1, 2026. The full text of this document is available at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-30A1.pdf.

The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) is committed to strengthening the integrity of the E-Rate program—formally known as the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism—and protecting limited E-Rate funds against waste, fraud, and abuse. We take action to reinforce the success and integrity of the E-Rate program by establishing a competitive bidding portal and document repository to strengthen the E-Rate program's competitive bidding rules as well as other actions to simplify and streamline program processes and procedures for E-Rate participants.

Beginning in funding year (FY) 2028, service providers will be required to respond to applicants' FCC Form 470 requests for services by submitting their bids into a Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)-managed bidding portal, and applicants will be required to upload all bid evaluation and vendor selection documents, including contracts, to the portal after they select their service providers. The E-Rate program's competitive bidding requirements reflect the Commission's determination that competition is the most efficient and effective means to ensure that applicants can receive and select the most cost-effective service offerings. The Commission has long held that a fair and open competitive bidding process is a cornerstone of and fundamental to the integrity of the E-Rate program. In addition, we adopt changes to streamline and simplify the E-Rate program while maintaining the integrity of the program and grant an Order on Reconsideration. These actions will provide greater transparency into the applicants' competitive bidding and bid evaluation and selection processes, and protect the program against waste, fraud, and abuse.

In this Report and Order, we take steps to both strengthen the integrity of the E-Rate program and simplify and improve program administration. Recognizing the Commission's recent achievements in addressing and managing fraud risks in the E-Rate program, and mindful of the need to balance effective oversight of the program with minimizing unnecessary administrative burdens, the measures we take are aimed at refining and improving certain aspects of the program, while tightening our oversight of the competitive bidding process. To that end, we first adopt our proposal to establish a competitive bidding portal, which will strengthen program integrity by increasing transparency and reducing reliance on self-certifications and will be effective for funding year 2028. Under the competitive bidding portal rules adopted, we will require: (1) prospective service providers to respond to applicants' FCC Forms 470 by submitting their bids into the USAC-managed portal; and (2) applicants to upload their bid evaluation and vendor selection documentation, including contract(s), after selecting their service provider(s). In addition, we take steps to simplify and streamline program rules and administration to improve how applicants transition services during the funding year; clarify cost allocation rules and procedures; provide competitive bidding guidance; eliminate a program form; modify the invoice filing deadline rules; and update E-Rate program definitions. Each of these issues have caused challenges for applicants in applying for and receiving funding for eligible services, and we anticipate that these changes will simplify E-Rate procedures and processes.

Based on the record and pursuant to our authority under section 254 of the Communications Act, we adopt the Commission's proposal to require applicants and service providers to use a competitive bidding portal and document repository during the E-Rate procurement process. In the Promoting Competitive Bidding NPRM, 87 FR 4182, January 27, 2021, the Commission proposed to “require prospective service providers to respond to applicant requests for services and equipment by uploading bids into a bidding portal managed by USAC, rather than submitting bids directly to applicants.” The Commission also sought comment on whether the competitive bidding portal should be used as a repository to store documentation associated with the FCC Form 470 requests and competitive bidding process. We discuss these new requirements.

Specifically, beginning with funding year 2028, we will require service providers to submit their bids in response to applicants' FCC Forms 470 into a USAC-managed competitive bidding portal. Applicants, in turn, will be required to use the bidding portal for bidder communications and updates during the competitive bidding process and then must upload bid evaluation and vendor selection documentation with their FCC Form 471 applications. Applicants will also be required to upload contracts and award documentation, to the extent that they are not already doing so. We direct USAC, under the direction and oversight of the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) and the Commission's Office of the Managing Director (OMD), to develop and implement the competitive bidding portal and leverage USAC's existing web-based account and application management portal, known as the E-Rate Productivity Center (EPC), for this purpose. We also direct the Bureau, working with OMD and other Commission staff, to provide clarification and guidance in the case of any ambiguity that may arise during the implementation of the competitive bidding portal. Additionally, we direct USAC to enhance training and outreach materials, under the oversight of the Bureau, to better assist participants with complying with the Commission's E-Rate competitive bidding rules, including the use of the new bidding portal functionality in EPC. We also direct USAC, at the direction of the Bureau, to add guidance on their website and seek stakeholder feedback on the technical aspects of portal functionality during the development via means that will provide constructive input. Stakeholders proposed multiple methods to provide feedback and some commenters requested specific portal functionality. We find directing USAC, under the oversight of the Bureau, to solicit direct feedback from stakeholders through interactive feedback sessions to be the most effective approach for implementing the portal and ensuring its successful use before going live. We agree with commenters that user testing and training will provide valuable input for developing and launching the competitive bidding portal. We conclude that these methods allow USAC to demonstrate portal functionality, which in turn supports more informed stakeholder discussions and specific clarification questions. To promote maximum effectiveness and smooth implementation and administration of the competitive bidding portal, we also delegate to the Bureau the authority to address and resolve unforeseen administrative issues or problems, provided that doing so is not inconsistent with the decisions we reach here.

Benefits to the New Approach. First, we find that a competitive bidding portal will help ensure a more fair and open competitive bidding process by increasing visibility and transparency into bidding information received during the E-Rate competitive bidding process. As noted in the 2020 United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) E-Rate report, a competitive bidding portal would strengthen E-Rate program controls and increase transparency by “allowing USAC direct access to obtain and monitor bidding information submitted by bidders without having to request such information.” The Commission's Office of Inspector General (OIG) similarly explained that “submission of service provider bids prior to bid selection prevents a service provider or applicant from submitting an altered bid or contract to USAC . . . to create the appearance of compliance.” We agree and further conclude that this increased transparency will give USAC and the Commission direct and instant insight into the competitive bidding process to reduce opportunities for potential bid collusion and the submission of sham or altered bids, thereby protecting the E-Rate program from waste, fraud, and abuse. We agree with several commenters that suggest the portal and the insight gained from having direct access to this competitive bidding documentation and information could lead to a more fair and open process and reduce potential waste. Additionally, we find that the competitive bidding portal and repository would streamline program administration by providing USAC and the Commission with direct access to the bids and competitive bidding documentation, which, in turn, would make reviews more efficient. Moreover, a competitive bidding portal and an associated repository will streamline both applicant and service provider document retention and other requirements, simplifying review in many cases, while requiring only that applicants simply upload documents they are already required to retain and produce through a portal that is integrated with EPC, a system E-Rate program participants are accustomed to using. The document repository will alleviate the burden imposed by recordkeeping requirements on applicants and service providers by preserving retrievable documents in the repository. Finally, the competitive bidding portal will bolster “more robust enforcement of laws designed to protect the E-Rate program's public procurement process” by preserving the integrity of source documents and ensuring that pre-award bid and bid selection documents remain “unaltered and available to auditors and investigators.”

We disagree with commenters that contend that such a portal or repository is unnecessary, or that it would not reduce waste, fraud, or abuse. Some commenters suggest a lack of sufficient justification, others suggest the current rules provide sufficient protection, while still others worry that the new requirements will be overly burdensome for E-Rate program participants. As recent OIG and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) criminal investigations into the program have shown, fraud remains a problem, and we believe that establishing a portal and associated repository will reduce opportunities for fraud. As noted by both OIG and the GAO, the Commission's ability to detect and deter fraud has historically been limited by its lack of direct access to underlying competitive bidding documentation. Access to the real-time submission of competitive bidding documentation will assist in uncovering fraud, simplifying reviews, ensuring program compliance, and reducing the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse. Enhanced fraud detection will also deter program participants from violating the rules. As stewards of limited universal service funds, we have a responsibility to identify ways to prevent bad actors from participating in the E-Rate program and ensure program participants continue to comply with our rules. We find that the competitive bidding portal and repository we adopt furthers this objective.

Although how prospective bidders will respond to applicants' FCC Forms 470 will change based on the actions we take, on balance, we expect that imposing these new requirements will significantly benefit program integrity. While requiring applicants and service providers to submit documentation that they are already required to maintain and produce pursuant to § 54.516(a)-(b) of the Commission's rules into a competitive bidding portal changes how and where program participants are required to submit this information, we find that it will not impose a substantial burden on program participants. Applicants are already required to post their FCC Form 470 on USAC's website in addition to uploading the form to any state bidding portal that may also be required. Additionally, certain E-Rate participants are already accustomed to uploading the documentation into an online portal or repository, and uploading the documentation into the USAC-managed competitive bidding portal integrated with EPC should not be a significant burden. We agree with the OIG that “as service providers are already required to submit bids and [applicants] are already required to compile and maintain bid submissions, providing for the submission of such data to USAC initially should not result in more than de minimis additional costs or additional burdens to either service providers or [ ] applicants.” Moreover, the document repository will reduce burdens for applicants and service providers with meeting recordkeeping and production requirements because the competitive bidding documentation will be available to USAC and the Commission through the portal. E-Rate participants will no longer need to separately retain documentation uploaded to the portal, and USAC and the Commission will be able to obtain competitive bidding documentation directly through the portal instead of through document requests to applicants and service providers. We agree with the National School Board Association (NSBA) that “[m]aximizing the program's impact on school and classroom broadband connectivity rates, while ensuring that bad actors are unable to defraud the program and ratepayers must be a high priority for policymakers.” We also agree with commenter Juniper Networks that a bidding portal “would lead to a more fair, open, and competitive bidding process” and with Infinity Communications & Consultants, Inc. that it would “reinforce the bidding process set forth in the E-Rate rules and lead to lower instances of bid protests or questions of bid efficacy.” In weighing the concerns about the competitive bidding portal against the benefits of limiting the risk for potential waste, fraud, or abuse, we conclude that the benefits weigh in favor of creating the competitive bidding portal and repository.

We reject commenters' views that state and local procurement requirements alone are sufficient to protect the integrity of the E-Rate program. Our experience over the years has shown that certain E-Rate applicants, including private and charter schools and private libraries, are exempt from, or otherwise not subject to, state and local procurement rules. Moreover, the Commission, as steward of E-Rate funding, has both the most direct stake in ensuring that the limited program funds are protected and not misused, and it has the unique ability to tailor E-Rate program rules based on insight into how the program operates across all states and localities. While state and local procurement requirements play an important role in ensuring that E-Rate funding is protected, state and local requirements vary among jurisdictions and are not specifically designed to protect the integrity of the E-Rate program. Additionally, the Commission has an independent obligation to safeguard every dollar in the Universal Service Fund, which cannot be delegated to a variety of state and local authorities to carry out through their procurement rules.

Many commenters believe that adopting a repository without the bidding portal would offer several advantages. We disagree and conclude that adopting only a repository would not achieve the Commission's goals of protecting the program from waste, fraud, and abuse. Specifically, we find that implementing a repository without the bidding portal fails to address OIG's and DOJ's concerns with bid collusion and bid alteration. Indeed, OIG emphasized that because there was no upfront collection of bids during the competitive bidding process, their ability to deter and detect waste, fraud, and abuse was severely limited. DOJ explained that the bidding portal “best preserves the integrity of source documents and any subsequent investigation” noting that the “threat of altered bid documents is real.” GAO concurred, reporting that E-Rate participants could misrepresent facts concerning the competitive bidding processes without the Commission's or USAC's knowledge. As such, GAO agreed that a portal “could strengthen program controls by allowing USAC direct access to obtain and monitor bidding information submitted by bidders without having to request such information from the applicants or service providers.” Failing to adopt the bidding portal would overlook identified fraud risks in the E-Rate program and prevent law enforcement officials from being able to identify and stop bad actors in the program. Requiring E-Rate participants to upload bids and competitive bidding documentation into a repository after the completion of their bid process does not sufficiently address the risk of applicants and service providers altering bids during the procurement process nor does it discourage bid collusion.

We find that implementing a bidding portal and repository is a prudent method to simplify program integrity reviews, streamline audits, and ensure program compliance. We observe that commenters raise concerns regarding the potential costs associated with creating, implementing and managing the competitive bidding portal, and the impact it may have on program participation. For example, Arkansas State Library expresses concern that small and rural libraries do not have the staff time or expertise to devote to a more complex filing process. The Council of the Great City Schools also speculates that the bidding portal could have the “unintended effect of deterring service providers from submitting bids” resulting in weakened competition and less cost savings. Other commenters argue that requiring participants to use a federal competitive bidding portal in addition to other bidding portals would be burdensome and confusing for applicants and service providers. For example, AASA speculates that districts would have to rely more on consultants, increasing compliance costs. To address the cost concerns, we estimate that the cost of creating, implementing, and managing the competitive bidding portal for the first year of operation will be under $750,000, followed thereafter by annual operating costs of $100,000 to $200,000, which together represents a comparatively low cost to take measures to protect a program where the funding cap in funding year 2026 is $5.2 billion. These costs are also markedly lower than the millions of dollars in E-Rate funding that have been recovered as a result of OIG and DOJ investigations of competitive bidding violations. As explained, the competitive bidding portal will be integrated into the EPC system ensuring that E-Rate program participants will be able to quickly adjust to the new requirements and minimizing costs to both the Universal Service Fund and stakeholders. As noted, to address stakeholder concerns regarding the transition to the competitive bidding portal, the Bureau will work with USAC to provide training and guidance on its use.

While we acknowledge that there will be a change, we disagree that using the competitive bidding portal will be significantly more complex than existing rules requiring the FCC Form 470 to be posted on USAC's website or that a higher level of expertise will be required. The proposal we adopt requires applicants to upload documents that they are already required to retain and produce under our rules and provides a centralized place for service providers to submit bids and communicate with applicants about any questions they may have. Currently, to initiate the competitive bidding process, applicants are required to complete and upload their FCC Forms 470 and documentation into EPC, for posting on USAC's website. Under the new rules, our expectation is that service providers will upload bids and applicants will submit their evaluation and vendor selection documentation into the competitive bidding portal. As such, E-Rate program participants already possess the requisite skills they need to comply with these new requirements. In other words, other than adjusting how this documentation is collected and shared with the Commission and USAC, the proposal we adopt is not intended to change the way applicants conduct their competitive bidding processes. Consequently, we disagree that the competitive bidding portal will discourage applicants or service providers from participating in the E-Rate program. Notably, we observe that no individual service provider submitted a filing opposing the bidding portal's implementation.

To the extent that the portal does alter current rules, we expect that it leans towards a more fair, open, and transparent process, resulting in more cost-effective service proposals and a reduction of waste, fraud, and abuse. Indeed, the use of a document repository should aid smaller entities in complying with recordkeeping requirements because the required documents would be uploaded and be available in the portal. Also, we find that many participants are already utilizing bid portals; as such, being required to upload similar documentation to a competitive bidding portal should not be burdensome because it is a familiar process. We also note the potential streamlining for E-Rate participants, as commenters who use bid portals for their E-Rate bidding requirements explained that they “appreciate the singular place to post, respond, and collect documents.” We find that the competitive bidding portal may also assist participants with complying with state or local requirements by providing a centralized place for communications and documentation regarding their competitive bidding processes. As such, although we decline to adopt a one-year grace period during which applicants would not be denied funding for procedural-type errors related to the bidding portal's use, we direct the Bureau to take into account when the new portal was adopted when considering requests for waiver, particularly for procedural or administrative errors by smaller or more rural participants.

We acknowledge that commenters express concerns that the proposed bidding portal is duplicative of existing state and local portals and could conflict with state and local laws, noting that state and local procurement requirements are complex, tailored to the needs of individual states, and are likely to change over time. As an initial matter, although E-Rate program participants may have to upload documentation to different portals, we find that the process will be minimally burdensome as they will already be familiar with utilizing bidding portals. Also, we conclude that taking this step to upload documentation into the federal bidding portal will be beneficial as applicants and service providers will no longer have to maintain this documentation once uploaded into the portal, and USAC and the Commission will not need to request this documentation for reviews or audit purposes. We next find that the competitive bidding portal will not conflict with state or local laws nor raise any preemption concerns because the portal will not supplant existing state and local requirements and instead must be used alongside these requirements. For example, State E-rate Coordinators' Alliance (SECA) states that “numerous E-rate applicants are required by state and local laws to receive printed, signed, and sealed bids. Some require notarized signatures to be lawful. Paper bids copies would be precluded by the portal.” Infinity Communications & Consultants, Inc. notes that some states “require wet signatures for contracts, or hard copy responses not digital.” Under our adopted rules, E-Rate program participants are required to comply with state and local rules; however copies of the bids, bidding documentation and any communication between applicants and service providers would also need to be uploaded into the competitive bidding portal. We recognize that state and local governments have procurement rules aimed at safeguarding against waste, fraud and abuse, and the federal bidding portal is not intended to impact these measures. Accordingly, in addition to using the new, USAC-managed competitive bidding portal, our expectation is that applicants and service providers would continue to use existing state or local bidding portals where required. We clarify that the submission of bids or questions to other state or local portals would not violate E-Rate program rules. Specifically, applicants should include instructions regarding any additional state or local requirements in their FCC Form 470 or request for proposals (RFP) document allowing service providers to upload their response to the FCC Form 470 in the bidding portal, and to comply with other requirements for submitting a responsive bid. The bidding portal will not replace other procurement requirements under state or local procurement laws, including submitting the bid or questions in an additional portal. We clarify that if a service provider or applicant is submitting different information to a state/local portal than what is being submitted to the competitive bidding portal, that may be treated as a competitive bidding violation and the E-Rate funding requests could be subject to denial. We direct the USAC, under the direction of the Bureau, to provide guidance and training on this issue.

We reject commenters' remaining arguments regarding potential conflicts between the bidding portal and state and local laws. Some commenters argue that the proposed bidding portal would conflict with state requirements concerning the publicizing of bid requests. For example, Infinity notes that California Public Contract Code and Utah's State Statute both require public advertisement for the submission of bids. We conclude that the rules we adopt and the competitive bidding portal requirements do not conflict with rules requiring the publication of bids—applicants may post advertisements and public notices soliciting bids to the FCC Forms 470 as required by state regulations and include instructions that copies of the bids must be uploaded to the competitive bidding portal as well. We also find that a public opening of bids would not violate E-Rate program rules. Further, state rules that require a bid be emailed or hand delivered do not conflict with the portal, service providers merely need to ensure that copies of the bids are submitted into the federal competitive bidding portal. Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) speculates that “[r]equired bidders' security, in the form of cash, a cashier's check made payable to the school district, a certified check made payable to the school district, or a bidder's bond executed by an admitted surety insurer made payable to the school district, may not be transmissible through a third-party portal.” We find that there is no such conflict between California's procurement laws and the federal competitive bidding portal as California's Public Contract Code does not prevent E-Rate program participants from submitting bids to the federal bidding portal and the rules we adopt place no restrictions on the submissions of securities required under state law. Additionally, to the extent there are state or local laws requiring bidder's security and specific instructions for submitting the security, these laws do not preclude the creation of a competitive bidding portal, as applicants and service providers may satisfy the state or local requirements regarding the bidder's security requirements while also submitting the bids and competitive bidding documentation to the competitive bidding portal. Similarly, we disagree with Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) that Mississippi state procurement law precludes the use of a federal competitive bidding portal. While the statute states that it “shall not require any bidder to submit bids electronically,” service providers may choose to submit electronic bids. We find that this is not incongruent with the competitive bidding portal and that service providers can reply to the applicant's FCC Form 470 using the competitive bidding portal and be compliant with Mississippi state procurement requirements. The South Dakota Department of Education speculates that the portal will interfere with the state's inclusion of ineligible E-Rate entities into its procurement, which may impact the bid evaluation process for eligible entities. However, requiring the bids, questions about the RFP and FCC Form 470, walkthroughs with vendors, and bid/vendor evaluation documentation related to the E-Rate supported contract to be uploaded should not interfere with a procurement that includes ineligible entities. We are not changing the requirements of the Commission's competitive bidding rules and the rules that apply to ineligible entities remain in place. Overall, we note that stakeholders have not provided an example of an actual conflict with the competitive bidding portal's requirements and instead have speculated that there could be conflicts. To the extent that there is a true conflict between the competitive bidding portal and state or local laws, parties may request a waiver of the Commission's rules.

Communications between Applicants and Service Providers. In the Promoting Competitive Bidding NPRM, the Commission proposed that “[s]ervice providers may anonymously submit questions or other inquiries to applicants through the bidding portal, to which applicants must respond during the competitive bidding process.” In addition, the Commission proposed that “no communication between service providers and applicants related to the competitive bid or the competitive bidding process would be permitted outside of the bidding portal during the competitive bidding process.” Commenters raise concerns regarding this process, asking whether the applicant could set the timeline for questions and answers in a fair and open manner, and whether this requirement effectively precludes applicants from holding bidder conferences or walkthroughs to discuss service needs with potential bidders and answer any questions. We adopt a modified version of the proposal prohibiting communication between service providers, applicants, and any representative thereof outside the bidding portal. A few commenters requested clarity regarding when the ban on communication applies, while others expressed concern about the burden imposed by these new rules. We clarify that bidders and applicants will use the portal for communications regarding the requested services and products beginning on the date the applicant files the FCC Form 470 until the contract is awarded, or the contract award date, with limited exceptions described. New requirements limiting communication between applicants and service providers is a change, however we find that the portal will assist participants with complying with these rules as documentation will only have to be uploaded to the competitive bidding portal and program participants will not have to separately retain the uploaded competitive bidding emails and related communication documentation.

We also adopt the proposal for bidders to be able to submit anonymous questions in the bidding portal for all participants to view, and for applicants to answer those questions in the bidding portal. We direct the Bureau and USAC to create a process for submitting questions anonymously through the competitive bidding portal and for the applicant to respond to the questions through the portal. Service providers may submit their questions regarding the competitive bidding process to applicants through the competitive bidding portal without using the anonymous question format. Applicants will be required to respond to the bidders' questions through the portal so all bidders may see the questions asked and the provided responses. We find that this question and response requirement will not supplant an applicant's existing ability to set deadlines for questions and otherwise ensure that all interested bidders are treated fairly and given access to the same information. However, if an applicant has already answered a question, they do not need to answer the same question multiple times. The South Dakota Department of Education raised concerns that the bidding portal rules could be challenging for rural applicants who largely receive no bids or one bid. Applicants that receive no bids are allowed to request quotes or bids from service providers; however, the solicitation and response must be uploaded to the portal to demonstrate how the service provider was selected. Applicants that receive one bid during the competitive bidding process may use the bid provided it is cost-effective and consistent with the rules. Additionally, states may withhold confidential information regarding its internal procurement and evaluation process. However, documentation on the final bid evaluation and vendor selection process ( i.e., bid matrices or other documentation showing how each bid was carefully considered and evaluated) must be uploaded to the portal. After the contract award notice has been issued and uploaded to the portal, confidential contract negotiation documentation is not required to be uploaded, but the final contract is required.

In addition, under our new rules, applicants can continue to hold conferences or other meetings with interested bidders. Questions and answers that were provided during the meeting and are relevant to the competitive bidding process must be uploaded to the competitive bidding portal within 72 hours to ensure that all potential bidders have access to the same information, and the competitive bidding process is fair and open to all bidders. A summary of the meetings held between the applicant and any potential bidders must be uploaded to the competitive bidding portal by the time the FCC Form 471 is filed. We find that this affords applicants the ability to hold these important conferences and walkthroughs without raising a concern about certain bidders having conversations with an applicant in a manner that gives special treatment. Internal communications between the applicant's bid evaluation team do not need to uploaded, but the final bid evaluation results must be uploaded. The documentation included in the portal should be similar to the documentation applicant and service providers are already required to retain and produce under the Commission's rules. We believe this enables applicants to use a variety of methods, including conferences and walkthroughs, to ensure that interested bidders have the required information to thoroughly respond to a bid solicitation, while ensuring that the program is protected against special treatment, inside information, or other anticompetitive practices that undermine the integrity of the E-Rate program.

Bid Holding Period. In the Promoting Competitive Bidding NPRM, the Commission sought comment on “requiring applicants to wait a specified amount of time before they can access bids submitted in response to their FCC Form 470 service requests.” The Commission discussed the risk that the current process enables applicants to share bids received from one service provider with another, perhaps more favored service provider, in a manner that violates the program rules, and it asked whether a bid holding period could address this concern. The Commission further asked whether withholding the bids from applicants until the deadline for bids has passed would help applicants comply with § 54.503(c) of the Commission's rules, which requires applicants to wait at least four weeks from the date of posting the FCC Form 470 to USAC's website before entering into a contract with a service provider. Consistent with the majority of commenters, we decline to require a bid holding period for the competitive bidding portal at this time. We agree with INCOMPAS that prohibiting applicants from reviewing bids early would prevent them from identifying potential issues and permit service providers to “cure their proposal and correct their bid,” thus leading more service providers to be disqualified, resulting in higher costs of service for the E-Rate program. We also agree with SHLB that “requiring USAC to withhold proposals from applicants for some period of time would needlessly extend the bidding process.” Some commenters express concern that the “current system of allowing applicants to open bids on a rolling basis could lead to a lack of competition because applicants might view earlier bids more favorably than later bids (or vice versa) based simply on when they are received.” However, we conclude that the benefits of a bid holding period are outweighed by the costs of a holding period. We anticipate that because of the measures adopted, applicants will be deterred from viewing earlier bids more favorably and instead will evaluate all bids fairly pursuant to our rules. We find that the competitive bidding portal will assist service providers in correcting their bids and streamlining the competitive bidding process. Accordingly, under the rules we adopt, applicants will be notified when a bid is uploaded into the portal and service providers will be able to communicate with applicants in the competitive bidding portal to modify bids to address any issues that may be identified during the E-Rate competitive bidding process and provide documentation of this communication in the portal.

Some commenters note that certain states have sealed bid requirements, or further require that applicants open bids at a predefined time. To accommodate this, we direct the Bureau and USAC to develop controls on who can access bids and an audit log for the bidding portal that would show a date and time for when a bid is received, opened, and downloaded, and by whom, along with the IP address. Applicants will be required to abide by state and local requirements regarding opening bids. We find that the audit log would help applicants demonstrate compliance with state and local laws that may preclude them from opening a bid prior to the bid deadline.

The access controls and audit log will also address OIG's concerns about bid collusion and improper sharing of bids. OIG recommended that bids be withheld from the applicant for a 28-day period to help prevent improper bid sharing or collusion between applicants and service providers. We note that because there is no mandatory 28-day period for bids to be submitted in the E-Rate program, holding bids for a 28-day period would not fully address OIG's concerns about bid collusion and improper bid sharing activities as there may still be time for parties to improperly share information and submit a bid to the FCC Form 470 after the 28-day holding period has expired. Applicants may file the FCC Form 470 to initiate the competitive bidding process up to one year before the start of the relevant funding year and thus, there could still be opportunities for bid collusion or improper bid sharing activities even with a 28-day holding period for each bid submitted. We believe an audit log and controls on who can access the bids will be a better way to address this issue than implementing a 28-day holding period as the audit controls and logs will indicate who accessed bids, the date/time when bids were accessed, and the date and time of bids as they are received. If there was improper bid sharing or bid collusion, the audit log would help identify these actions allowing USAC and the Commission to take appropriate actions.

State and Other Master Contracts. In the Promoting Competitive Bidding NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether, “for those applicants using state master contracts, [there is] documentation that applicants should be required to upload [to] demonstrate compliance with the E-Rate rules.” Some commenters identify challenges that a bidding portal would create for applicants conducting large procurements, or those who must comply with unique rules and processes. For example, commenters note concerns with the use of state master contracts, in particular state master contracts that result in multiple awards schedules and require the use of mini-bids. Commenters offer that, to account for state master contracts, the bidding portal must have “considerable flexibility,” or further, that competitive bidding processes that result in state master contracts should be exempt from the bidding portal. We require applicants to upload a copy of a state master contract and the related bidding documentation to the competitive bidding portal when filing their FCC Form 471 application if the state master contract was used as part of an applicant's competitive bidding process or is the contract that was selected. We disagree with SECA that the competitive bidding portal is “unable to accommodate multi-stage bidding or mini-bids conducted using E-rate qualified master contracts.” Instead, we find that the bidding portal will have sufficient flexibility to accommodate a variety of competitive bidding processes, including those with multiple stages. When applicants are required to perform a “mini-bid” evaluation based on a multi-award state master contract, the documents that the applicant prepared, in connection with the mini-bid process, including those reflecting how the applicant selected the winning bidder among the available vendors in the multi-award state master contract, must also be uploaded to the competitive bidding portal. For consortium applicants, we require the consortium leader to submit the competitive bidding and contract documentation related to the consortium's FCC Form 471 on behalf of its members to the competitive bidding portal. We find that this approach is consistent with the role of a consortium leader as the entity that takes the lead in responding to USAC inquires related to the consortium applicant's competitive bidding process.

For multi-stage bidding, we require that applicants use the portal for each round of the procurement, and that portal functionality will enable multiple successive rounds in a multi-stage procurement to be linked or otherwise associated. This functionality will permit applicants that do multi-stage procurements, or who wish to include a “Best and Final Offer” phase of a procurement, to manage the entire procurement through the bidding portal.

Multi-Year Contracts. For multi-year contracts, we require applicants to upload the required competitive bidding and contract documentation to the competitive bidding portal only once in the first year of the contract, and applicants will not be required to upload duplicative competitive bidding and contract documentation for the remainder of the contract's term provided there are not any modifications that require a new competitive bidding process. For existing multi-year contracts that are currently being used to support funding requests, in funding year 2029, applicants will be required to upload the associated bids, competitive bidding, and bid evaluation documents for the multi-year contract into the portal by the time the applicant submits their FCC Forms 471 that rely on that contract. This is one year after the portal is implemented, giving applicants time to focus on the funding year 2028 competitive bidding process before needing to provide past competitive bidding documentation to the repository.

In the Promoting Competitive Bidding NPRM, the Commission asked whether applicants and service providers should “be permitted access to their stored competitive bidding documents for a period long enough to be able to comply with recordkeeping requirements.” The Commission also asked, “if E-Rate program participants retain access to their records, should this access be afforded to them in a way to permit them to produce the records at the request of any representative (including any auditor) appointed by a state education department, USAC, the Commission, or any local, state or federal agency with jurisdiction over the entity, as is required by § 54.516(b)?” We answer both these questions affirmatively. Under our adopted rules, once an applicant uploads the competitive bidding documentation into the bidding portal and repository, applicants will be able to access this documentation when needed and provide it to other local, state, or federal agencies with jurisdiction over the applicant as necessary. Thus, by preserving this documentation in the bidding portal and repository, the portal will assist in ensuring compliance with the competitive bidding recordkeeping and production requirements set forth in § 54.516(a)-(b) of the Commission's rules. We agree with the Illinois Office of Broadband that the bidding portal “reduces the burden of complying with the Commission's document retention rules over the long term.” In adopting this requirement, we do not make any modifications to § 54.516(a) of the Commission's rules. However, applicants and service providers do not need to separately retain documents that are also uploaded to the competitive bidding portal and can rely on this documentation to meet their document retention requirements.

Processing of FCC Forms 471. We expect that USAC will continue to issue funding commitments in a timely manner according to the standard that the Commission provided in the First 2014 E-Rate Order, 80 FR 167, January 5, 2015. There, the Commission directed USAC “to aim to issue funding commitments or denials for all `workable' funding requests by September 1st of each funding year,” noting that this date would “provide[ ] USAC with approximately five months beyond the [usual] application filing window deadline to review all timely filed and complete funding requests.” In issuing this direction, the Commission acknowledged that “even `workable' funding requests may be time consuming for USAC to process” and that USAC should continue to perform a “thorough review of each application,” including by “contact[ing] applicants to seek additional information concerning a funding request” and “provid[ing] applicants with an opportunity to respond to [USAC's] questions.”

A few commenters raise concerns about whether the additional data and documentation submitted to the competitive bidding portal may result in system issues or delays in reviewing applications and slow procurement timelines. While these process changes will result in additional documentation, we find that expecting USAC to maintain the same processing timelines for issuing funding commitments is justified, given the paramount importance of making funding commitments prior to the start of the typical school year, i.e., in or around early September. We direct USAC to incorporate data analytics and other tools to select specific FCC Form 471 applications for additional review and to detect potential competitive bidding violations during pre-commitment reviews using the additional documentation that will be available through the competitive bidding portal. While any additional pre-commitment reviews may increase processing times in some respects, we find that USAC's processing times will be lessened in other respects as it can use the submitted competitive bidding and contract documentation to resolve potential issues with funding applications internally, rather than incur delays by reaching out to applicants or service providers for additional information. We find that asking USAC to continue to follow existing processing times and review standards while, at the same time, strategically incorporating this additional competitive bidding and contract documentation into its review processes strikes a reasonable balance between ensuring that funding commitments are issued in time for schools and libraries to purchase vital broadband services and equipment and ensuring that USAC uses this additional information to detect rule violations and strengthen program integrity.

Information Security and Confidentiality. Some commenters raise the question of whether proprietary and confidential information submitted to the competitive bidding portal would be kept confidential. For example, the South Dakota Department of Education notes that the public availability of bidding information submitted into the competitive bidding portal could run afoul of state law. Given the possibility that certain bidding documentation ( i.e., non-winning bids) submitted to the bidding portal may contain confidential financial or proprietary information, we will treat bids and other pricing data submitted to the bidding portal as presumptively confidential and will not make the non-winning bids and submitted pricing data routinely available for public inspection. This includes bid reviews by applicants and other related documents which may include or reference information from bids. However, we are not making any changes to the data that is currently available for the E-Rate program, and all pricing data included on the FCC Form 471 will remain publicly available. We direct the Bureau, in consultation with the Office of General Counsel, to evaluate and determine whether additional data ( e.g., aggregated information for reporting purposes) could be made publicly available without compromising the security or confidentiality concerns raised in the record, including not publicly disclosing any data that is confidential, like non-winning bids. We direct USAC to retain all documentation in the portal and repository in accordance with the applicable federal records schedule for Universal Service Fund-related records and protect, retain, manage, and use all data and documentation in accordance with applicable federal information security and privacy requirements. We also direct that access to the competitive bidding portal and repository be limited to the applicant's Account Administrator and up to two other authorized users (including consultants) and audit logs to be maintained on when, by whom, and what documentation was accessed in the portal.

Bid Response Template. In the Promoting Competitive Bidding NPRM, the Commission sought comment on “whether service providers should be required to submit information in a manner that enables applicants to compare competing bids.” The Commission also asked whether applicants face difficulty in comparing bids submitted in different formats. Most commenters did not address this issue. DOJ supports this proposal, specifically stating that service providers should submit information “in a manner that enables applicants to compare competing bids.” In particular, DOJ supports a requirement that service providers submit a summary form, which could be a portion of the FCC Form 471, that contains “key data points,” in an effort to allow USAC to better leverage the data for compliance and investigative purposes, and allow applicants to “be confident that they are comparing apples to apples when selecting a service provider.”

We direct the Bureau, after seeking comment if deemed necessary or advisable, to develop a standardized bid response template, and make it available for applicants to use on an optional basis. We find that a standardized template, made available for service providers to use for submitting bids, would prove useful to applicants, as it could help standardize bid responses and make it easier for applicants to compare bids and ensure compliance with our rules for several reasons. First, we find that having a standardized bid response template would help service providers formulate bids in a more uniform manner by making clear the required information. Second, a standard template would help applicants in their bid evaluation process because each response would contain data that could easily and appropriately be compared across service providers. Third, we find that a bid template could help USAC better utilize data analytics because it will allow for the data points to be provided in a uniform manner, making it easier for USAC to identify areas of concern that warrant further review. Applicants choosing to use the template can require potential bidders to use the template bid response form by stating that use of the template is a requirement for responding to its FCC Form 470. We will determine in the future whether to require mandatory use of a standardized bid response form by service providers.

We also take steps to streamline or clarify aspects of the E-Rate program and its administration based on the record received in response to the 2023 FNPRM, 88 FR 152, August 9, 2023. Specifically, we amend the E-Rate program rules to improve how applicants transition between service providers during a funding year and establish a process for applicants to increase bandwidth within a funding year. We also take this opportunity to provide guidance on transition of services; clarify cost allocation rules and procedures; provide guidance on competitive bidding requirements; eliminate the FCC Form 486; amend the Commission's invoicing rules; and update E-Rate program definitions. Each of these issues have caused challenges for applicants in applying for and receiving discounts on eligible services, and we anticipate that these changes will result in an overall simplification of E-Rate procedures and processes.

First, we adopt changes to improve how applicants request funding when they are transitioning between two service providers (or service offerings) during the funding year, given the difficulty in determining the precise cutover date during the application filing window. To prevent funding duplicative services, E-Rate procedures do not allow USAC to commit funding to two funding requests for service, to the same recipients, that overlap in time. At the same time, due to concerns about exceeding the E-Rate funding cap, the Commission's service substitution rules require that post-commitment service substitutions be based on the lower of either the pre-discount price of the service for which support was originally requested or the pre-discount price of the new, substituted service. In the 2023 FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the best way to allow applicants to adjust transition dates during the funding year, such as requesting twelve months of funding for the higher-priced service and then filing a post-commitment change request to reduce one of the requests. Commenters agree that the current process for transitioning services during the funding year should be streamlined.

Upon review of the record and consideration of the potential impact on demand, we amend our rules to create a process for applicants that are transitioning services to file a post-commitment request that changes the service start and end dates and permits, if the applicants meet certain criteria, increases in the commitment amount. Applicants that seek the flexibility to increase a funding commitment, if needed, will file partial year funding requests for both the old and the new services, estimating the cutover dates, but not to exceed twelve months. The applicant must indicate on the FCC Form 471 application that the services are transitioning. Once the dates are known, the applicant may file a post-commitment request, which USAC will be permitted to grant even if the date change results in a higher funding commitment.

Some commenters support an option mentioned in the 2023 FNPRM to have the applicant request 12 months of service from the higher cost service; however, we find that this option would result in more volatile program demand and a more burdensome review when applicants want to transition service providers. By requiring applicants to file partial year funding requests for both services, estimated demand at the close of the application filing window will be closer to the actual demand, rather than inflating demand to accommodate the highest possible cost of every transition. In addition, USAC can review both funding requests and the associated contract records at the time of the application review and the amount of time needed for post-commitment review will be reduced. This will also permit the existing service provider to be reimbursed for services provided even if the new service provider has the higher-cost service. Additionally, applicants that estimated the transition dates correctly will not need to file any post-commitment requests, giving applicants an added incentive to work with their service providers to try to determine accurate cutover dates when transitioning service during a funding year. We expect that, in total, these changes will enable applicants to be able to more easily receive approved E-Rate funding when they are transitioning services even when the transition dates are not known at the time they are applying for E-Rate funding during the application filing window and will simplify the process for when they are transitioning services during the funding year. These changes will be effective in the funding year application filing window after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approves any necessary program form changes.

To effectuate this change, we direct USAC to approve a post-commitment increase if the applicant: (1) filed partial funding year requests for funding from both service providers (or service offerings, in the case of a transition to a different service from the same service provider) during the application filing window using the best estimates of the transition dates; (2) indicated on the FCC Form 471 that the requests were for a transition of service; and (3) there are available funds below the E-Rate program funding cap. We caution that if there are no available E-Rate funds when an applicant files the post-commitment request, USAC will not be permitted to approve an increase in the funding commitment. We do not expect this to be an issue in the near future under the current funding cap and demand, but we direct the Bureau to monitor demand and release guidance on how to request funding for transitions in future funding years if demand is nearing the cap. During post-commitment review, the applicant shall provide details about the transition and dates of actual transition between the two service providers or offerings, including a showing of agreement from both service providers about the end date of the first service provider and the start date of the second service provider. We disagree with commenters suggesting that USAC should be permitted to commit funding for both service providers for the transition month and to resolve the duplicate funding issues during the invoicing review; we find that the administrative challenges during invoicing and potential for improper payments to both service providers outweigh any potential benefits of such an approach.

Finally, we recognize that there are some applicants that have transitioned services without the benefit of this post-commitment process and as a result have been unable to obtain reimbursement for all of the approved services delivered. For pending requests for waiver/appeals or pending service substitution requests, we direct the Bureau to review requests based on the new rules, once effective, and to find good cause for a waiver, if the following conditions are met: (1) the party indicated it was transitioning to new services during the funding year; (2) the delay in transitioning services was for reasons beyond the service providers' control; (3) the party filed an appeal within a reasonable amount of time after determining there was an issue with the transition of services; and (4) there is funding available based on overall program demand and the funding cap. When these conditions are met, there is good cause to find that applicants have taken the steps needed to transition between service providers, and it is appropriate to provide E-Rate support when the transition of service is delayed for reasons beyond their control.

Next, in response to stakeholder requests, we offer additional guidance on cost allocation rules and procedures. As part of its efforts to simplify the E-Rate program, the Commission provided guidance in the 2023 E-Rate Report and Order, 88 FR 156, August 15, 2023, on several common cost allocation issues that applicants experienced. Specifically, the Commission provided guidance on when on-campus internet usage can be considered ancillary and when the use of shared equipment located in a non-instructional facility requires cost allocation. In addition, the Commission sought further comment on cost allocation issues that would benefit from additional guidance.

Several commenters support applying the internet ancillary use guidance to data transmission services, wide area network services, or to all category one services. In the 2023 E-Rate Report and Order, the Commission adopted a presumption that, if at least 90% of an applicant's requested internet service is being used for eligible purposes, the remaining ineligible use of the internet service will be presumed to be ancillary and, therefore, cost allocation is not required. The 2023 E-Rate Report and Order included guidance regarding data transmission services, and we agree that if at least 90% of an applicant's requested recurring category one service, be it a data transmission service or any other category one service, will be used for an eligible purpose during the funding year, the remaining ineligible use of the category one service at eligible locations will be presumed to be ancillary and, therefore, cost allocation will not be required. As the Commission stated in the 2023 E-Rate Report and Order, if an applicant selected the most cost-effective offering to meet its needs, then the minimal ineligible use of the service should be treated as ancillary and cost allocation is not required. Category one services, including internet access services, provide connectivity to a location as a whole, and incidental, ancillary on-premises use beyond that eligible use should be permissible without additional paperwork burdens.

Next, American Library Association (ALA) notes that some libraries may extend their Wi-Fi a short distance into the community and asks whether the presumption of ancillary use applies. This presumption is limited to on-premises ancillary use. Each of the examples provided by commenters to the 2023 E-Rate Report and Order discussed the burden of attempting to allocate costs associated with in-building school or library ineligible uses, such as healthcare clinics, childcare services, or services to a classroom offering services to students under the age of three. Applicants are required to cost allocate off-campus use from their E-Rate requests.

As proposed, we adopt a limited exception to our competitive bidding rules to allow applicants to seek needed bandwidth increases in between E-Rate funding cycles. The E-Rate program rules require applicants to competitively bid services using the FCC Form 470. This process starts at least four weeks before the applicant files its FCC Form 471 applications during the annual filing window, but can occur six months before, or—in the case of multi-year contracts—years before the funding application is submitted. Applicants are encouraged to seek bids for and sign contracts that include a range of bandwidths in order to accommodate changes in bandwidth needs in the future, but applicants are not always able to anticipate all their bandwidth needs. For example, in 2020, the Bureau opened a second application filing window in September to address increased on-campus bandwidth needs as a result of remote learning challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in other instances, applicants may be unable to increase their bandwidth mid-funding year without potentially violating the E-Rate program competitive bidding rules. We therefore agree with commenters supporting a limited exception to the competitive bidding rules so applicants can submit a service substitution request to increase bandwidth during the funding year at the existing commitment amount ( i.e., total price of the current bandwidth service). We clarify that this exception means applicants will be responsible for any corresponding increase in price for the increased bandwidth for the remaining period of the funding year. To request the increased bandwidth (and a potential increased funding commitment) in subsequent funding years, applicants would need to file a new FCC Form 470 and seek competitive bids for the increased bandwidth service for the next application filing window. Applicants that can demonstrate that the bandwidth and price increase were covered by an existing FCC Form 470 and competitive bidding process would not need to rebid the service.

By providing this limited exception, we allow applicants flexibility to work with their service providers to obtain the services they need without risking unexpected changes in program demand or program abuse. We disagree with certain alternate proposals in the comments to the 2023 FNPRM. For example, commenters suggest allowing for a commitment increase using pricing adjusted from the original bid or contract or allowing applicants to seek new bids mid-funding year. The E-Rate program relies on fair and open competitive bidding to ensure that schools and libraries supported by federal universal service funds receive the highest-quality services at the lowest available rates, and we do not intend to introduce unnecessary complexity to these rules. In general, the program does not allow for mid-funding year, post-commitment funding increases, and we find this action appropriately allows applicants to increase bandwidth during the funding year without affecting program demand.

We expect that the competitive bidding portal will help address the issue of unsolicited spam bids because the bidder will be required to use the portal to respond the applicant's FCC Form 470 and the applicant will not be permitted to consider bids received outside of the portal. Here, we address the treatment of spam or other automated bid responses that applicants receive until the portal is fully implemented. In the 2023 FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the types of spam and other automated bid responses that are being generated and sent to the applicant once or soon after their FCC Form 470 is posted, their frequency and quantity, as well as whether to consider changes to the FCC Form 470 to simplify how to establish disqualification factors and deadlines. In considering comments, the Commission is primarily focused on how to ensure applicants carefully consider all qualified bids in accordance with program requirements.

We expect applicants to retain all bid documentation, including those applicants consider to be spam bid responses. Commenters raise concerns about bid responses received that lacked information requested on the FCC Form 470, such as pricing or information tailored to the applicant. These responses often appear as generic email solicitations with a list of all goods and services and contact information to receive additional information. Applicants may establish disqualification factors, such as disqualifying if the bid lacks pricing and other necessary information, in the FCC Form 470, provided those factors are consistent with applicable Commission rules, and document when a bid response is disqualified. Although we recognize that applicants may face a small burden in documenting why a bid was disqualified or not considered during the bid evaluation, our current information concerning the quantity and types of bid responses that applicants seek to discard is limited, and it would be premature to determine whether particular bid responses do not need to be retained and the characteristics of such responses.

We also agree with those commenters that assert that bid responses that do not include pricing information or require the applicant to contact the solicitor to request pricing for the sought-after services for the requested time period can be disqualified as non-responsive even if the applicant does not state in the FCC Form 470 that pricing information is specifically required. The Commission's rules require that price be the primary factor in selecting the most cost-effective service offering. In the 2011 Baltimore City Order, the Bureau provided guidance that explained that applicants must provide notice—in either its FCC Form 470 or its RFP—of any disqualification criteria, but also made clear that price is required to be the primary factor applicants must consider. When pricing is not expressly provided in the bid response, the bid response can be disqualified without the applicant needing to state that fact in its FCC Form 470 or RFP. The applicant should still retain the bid response and note why the response was disqualified and not evaluated. Multiple copies of the same spam bid need only be disqualified once in a bid evaluation. The Commission encourages the Bureau and USAC to consider implementing system controls for spam bids during the design and development of the portal.

We next modify our rules to clarify the bids that applicants must consider in the evaluation process. Applicants must wait at least four weeks from the posting of the FCC Form 470 before selecting service providers. Our rules require applicants to carefully consider all bids received before the bid evaluation process has occurred. Even if the minimum 28-day waiting period has lapsed, applicants should consider all bids received up until they begin consideration, unless they provided a specific bid submission deadline and noted that bids received after the deadline would be disqualified on the FCC Form 470 or RFP document. Commenters suggest that the bid response deadline, the point after which a bid could be disqualified for being late-submitted, should be presumed to be at 11:59 p.m. E.T. on the day before the allowable contract date (the day after the 28-day waiting period when applicants may select a service provider), but some also seek the flexibility to consider bids received after that deadline. We reject this proposal and revise our rules to make our current interpretation clear that absent a deadline in the narrative, applicants should consider all bids received before the evaluation process, which may occur sometime after the minimum 28-day waiting period. Considering more bids, rather than fewer, benefits applicants and the E-Rate program. Stakeholders also acknowledge that “there may be some instances where the applicant may want to consider all late submitted bid[s],” noting that rural or remote applicants may need additional time to receive bids. The benefits of considering additional bids that may be meritorious and are received prior to the bid evaluation far outweigh the burden to applicants of considering them, and to the extent that an applicant finds the burden to be too high, it may set a bid response deadline in the narrative section of the FCC Form 470 or an RFP document that could be used to disqualify all late-submitted bids.

To reduce the number of forms required to be filed by E-Rate applicants throughout the funding year, we adopt the proposal to remove the requirement that applicants file the FCC Form 486 (Receipt of Service Confirmation and Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Certification Form) for future funding years, beginning in funding year 2028. We find the notification that an applicant makes that their services have started to be duplicative and we transfer the remaining CIPA compliance certifications to the FCC Form 471 funding application. There was strong support from commenters regarding this proposal and no opposition.

We agree with commenters that state this proposal would reduce applicant burden by removing duplicative certifications and reducing the risk of penalties. Requiring applicants to provide notice to USAC that services have started is duplicative of certifications made on the FCC Forms 472 and 474, associated invoicing forms. For example, the FCC Form 472 currently requires certification that “The discount amounts listed in this Billed Entity Applicant Reimbursement Form are accurate and represent charges for eligible services and/or equipment delivered to and used by eligible schools, libraries, or consortia of those entities for educational purposes, on or after the service start date reported on the associated Form 486.” We also find the limited benefits of requiring an applicant to certify that services have started prior to invoicing are outweighed by the burden of filing the FCC Form 486. Commenters also note that “any ministerial or clerical errors made by applicants in the form [486] can result in reduced or denial of funding thereby causing additional hardship and burdens without a corresponding benefit.” The failure to timely file the FCC Form 486 has real consequences for applicants and service providers, resulting in loss of funding or additional time spent filing appeals.

For the CIPA certifications that are collected on the FCC Form 486, we will move the certifications to the funding application form, or the FCC Form 471. Commenters support this transfer. We do not expect applicants to have significant challenges with making this annual certification of compliance earlier in the calendar year.

In order to move the CIPA certification, beginning in funding year 2028, consortia applicants will need to collect the annual FCC Form 479, the Certification by Administrative Authority to Billed Entity of Compliance with the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Form, prior to the Billed Entity certifying a consortium's CIPA compliance on the FCC Form 471 application. This aligns the timing of the FCC Form 479 with both the FCC Form 471 application filing window and the existing timeline for applicant entities to demonstrate that a consortium billed entity applicant has authorization to file on behalf of its member entities. We recognize that this will be a shift in the filing procedures of consortia, but decline to preemptively extend this new FCC Form 479 filing deadline and encourage consortia leads to start planning for this timeline change in advance of funding year 2028's application filing window. Relatedly, we decline to adopt a proposal by SECA to allow school or library applicants that are part of a consortium to fill out an FCC Form 479 that certifies to CIPA compliance for multiple funding years, while the consortium lead is required to certify annually. We find this proposal inconsistent with the language of section 254(h) of the Communications Act requiring schools and libraries to annually certify compliance regarding the CIPA requirements. Although the statute does not prescribe consortium requirements, we do not agree that an annual certification by the consortium lead alone is sufficient to meet the plain language requirement that a school and library annually certify its compliance with the CIPA requirements to the Commission.

To align program rules with the elimination of FCC Form 486 for future funding years, we also amend § 54.514(a) of the Commission's rules, which codifies the invoice filing deadline, to remove the reference to the FCC Form 486 and replace it with a deadline based on the date of the funding commitment decision letter. This change permits applicants and service providers time to invoice in the limited instances when a funding commitment decision letter is not issued until after the last day to receive service. In those instances, we direct USAC to remind applicants in the funding commitment decision letter of the last day to receive service and to check that services were delivered during the appropriate funding period before disbursing funds in response to requests for reimbursement. We also make further changes to § 54.520 of the Commission's rules to revise references to FCC Form 486.

Lastly, we direct the Bureau to take all necessary steps to remove the FCC Form 486 requirement for future funding years, transfer the annual CIPA compliance certifications to the FCC Form 471, and update the FCC Forms 472 and 474 ( i.e., the invoicing certifications and forms). In accordance with this section, we also direct the Bureau to work with USAC to update the EPC, all program notifications ( e.g., the funding commitment decision letter), and all outreach materials regarding references to the FCC Form 486 or next steps in the funding commitment process. Because applicants are required to annually certify compliance with CIPA, the FCC Form 486 must continue be filed until the CIPA certifications can be made on the FCC Form 471 and the EPC is updated to account for the new application and invoicing certifications, as well as to account for any changes to the invoicing filing system. Applicants with open commitments or approved appeals from prior funding years will continue to use the FCC Form 486 to certify CIPA compliance for the appropriate funding year at issue.

Next, we amend E-Rate program invoicing rules to ease certain restrictions around the invoice filing deadline. In 2014, the Commission codified the invoice filing deadline and adopted an “extraordinary circumstances” standard for waiving the rule and granting extensions to ensure the efficient operation of the program, provide certainty for program participants, and allow USAC and the Commission to identify unused E-Rate funds that may be carried forward to future funding years. The rule met those objectives, but some commenters suggest that additional leeway is needed for a small number of applicants and service providers that failed to file their requests for reimbursement or request an extension by the invoice filing deadline despite navigating most of the E-Rate funding processes. In the 2023 FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on a proposal to modify the invoice filing deadline extension rule to allow applicants and service providers to seek an extension of the original invoice filing deadline from USAC if the request is made within 15 days of the original invoice filing deadline. The Commission also directed the Bureau to hold any waiver requests that were filed within 15 days of the original invoice filing deadline and sought further comment on other potential ways to simplify or streamline the invoicing and disbursement process, including providing a grace period for applicants and service providers to re-submit timely filed but rejected requests for reimbursement.

We now amend our rules and adopt the proposal to permit applicants and service providers under § 54.514(b) of the Commission's rules to request the single 120-day extension of the original invoice filing deadline from USAC if the request is made within 15 days of the original invoice filing deadline. This change will reduce the number of waiver requests by providing a small window for applicants and service providers who missed the invoice filing deadline to request additional time, while maintaining the codified invoice filing deadline rule. Commenters are broadly supportive of this proposed rule change, with the Illinois Office of Broadband pointing out that such a rule change would “avert the dire consequences” of failing to request an extension before the invoice filing deadline. While one commenter suggests providing a longer period, we conclude that 15 days provides an adequate window of time for those who missed the initial deadline to submit an invoice filing extension request. Fifteen days is also consistent with the 15-day period provided after the USAC reminder to file the FCC Form 486. Consistent with this new approach, we direct the Bureau to grant all of the held waiver requests that are pending and were filed within 15 days of the missed invoice filing deadline, or that demonstrate an attempt to file a reimbursement request with USAC within 15 days of the missed invoice filing deadline.

At the same time, we decline to permit applicants and service providers to submit requests for more than one 120-day extension of the invoice filing deadline to USAC because such extensions would be contrary to our efforts to ensure timely invoicing. To the extent applicants and service providers can demonstrate good cause for an additional extension, they may consider seeking an additional extension through a waiver from the Commission. We also decline to direct USAC to accept requests for reimbursement from applicants and service providers that are filed within 15 days of the invoice filing deadline date if USAC has not granted a request for extension filed by the applicant. We are concerned that this could lead to confusion or ambiguity over the invoice filing deadline itself. At the same time, we direct USAC to develop a mechanism to remind applicants and service providers that have not filed a request for reimbursement or a request for extension as of the invoice filing deadline to seek an extension within 15 days of the deadline. We also direct USAC to include instructions in the reminder on how to request an extension of the invoice filing deadline consistent with this Order.

We retain the extraordinary circumstances standard for those seeking a waiver of the invoice filing deadline rule from the Commission, and we disagree with those parties suggesting that we eliminate it. The invoice filing deadline provides certainty to applicants and service providers, as well as to the Commission and USAC, which relies on the invoicing filing deadline to de-obligate committed funds efficiently. The extraordinary circumstances standard incentivizes parties to meet the invoice filing deadline and reduces uncertainty regarding extensions. The Bureau has waived the invoice filing deadline rules when warranted, such as when a service provider acquisition made invoicing a technical impossibility, when the owner of a service provider and person responsible for invoicing passed away, and when weather and other similar disasters impeded applicants' ability to file requests for reimbursement by the invoice filing deadline. Taken together, we find that the extraordinary circumstances standard, the new invoice filing reminder mechanism, and the 15-day period after the invoice filing deadline to request a one-time, 120-day extension from USAC strike the right balance between flexibility for E-Rate participants and certainty to ensure the efficient administration of the E-Rate program.

Next, we adopt a rule providing for a one-time, 60-day grace period for applicants and service providers to resubmit corrected versions of requests for reimbursement that were timely filed before the invoice filing deadline but rejected by USAC. Requests for reimbursement may be rejected for a variety of reasons and, while applicants and service providers have the option to appeal a rejected request for reimbursement to USAC that was timely filed, submitting an appeal is more burdensome than refiling a corrected request for reimbursement, especially for smaller schools and libraries that, as NCTA—The Internet & Television Association (NCTA) identifies in their comments, are more “well-versed” in refiling corrected requests for reimbursement than in drafting and submitting an appeal. Commenters are broadly supportive of this change, claiming that it would increase program efficiency by removing the appeal review process for those applicants and service providers who timely filed a request for reimbursement that was rejected. While the Commission initially sought comment on a 30-day grace period, some commenters suggest a 60-day grace period is more consistent with the 60-day appeal period. We agree that aligning these two time periods is the most streamlined option and will reduce confusion. This will allow applicants and service providers that can correct the rejected request for reimbursement to refile, rather than filing an appeal, waiting for a decision, and then being given an additional period of time to resubmit the request for reimbursement. We decline USTelecom—The Broadband Association's (USTelecom) request to allow for invoice filing deadline extensions for funding requests that have pending invoices for the total amount, finding it unneeded based on the other changes adopted in this Order that permit refiling after an invoice is rejected.

As indicated, applicants and service providers also have the option to appeal a rejected request for reimbursement to USAC, if for some reason they are unable to correct the discrepancy or deficiency that is causing the rejection. We also clarify that the applicants and service providers that choose to refile the invoice but receive another rejection can appeal that subsequent rejection to USAC within 60 days. If the appeal is granted, our rules provide that the applicant or service provider will have 120 days from the date of the revised funding commitment decision letter (RFCDL) to refile the request for reimbursement. If the appeal is denied, the applicant may file a request for review and/or waiver from the Commission.

Finally, we provide guidance to applicants, service providers, and USAC, and modify the rule language regarding post-commitment requests to extend the invoice filing deadline under § 54.514(a)(3). In 2020, the Commission addressed an issue in the program rules that left applicants with some pending post-commitment requests or appeals unable to invoice by the invoice filing deadline. To fix the issue, the Commission amended the invoicing deadline rules to provide 120 days from the date of a Revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter approving a post-commitment request or a successful appeal. Such relief is limited to approvals of timely filed post-commitment requests that affect invoicing, like service substitutions filed prior to the service delivery deadline or service provider changes. Reduction or cancellation of a portion of a funding request would not, for example, result in additional time to invoice. We amend the rule now to provide applicants and service providers with clarity without notice and comment in accordance with the exception to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for procedural rules.

We next update certain E-Rate program's definitions to better reflect current technology and to eliminate confusion. We also amend § 54.503(b) of the Commission's to clean up an incorrect cross-reference and § 54.513(d) to align the document retention period for equipment transfers with the overall document retention rule.

Wiring Between Buildings. We first adopt language that should make it easier for multiple schools that share a campus to use category two support for cabling. In funding year 2017, the Bureau modified the eligible services list to provide guidance on the classifications of connections between buildings of a single school. In that guidance, the Bureau noted that “[c]onnections between different schools with campuses located at the same property ( e.g., an elementary school and middle school located on the same property) are considered to be category one digital transmission services,” which have separate competitive bidding requirements. In funding year 2018, the Bureau further clarified that connections between two schools in a single building may be classified as a category two service, but rejected requests to allow the term “single school campus” in the definition of “internal connections” as allowing for a single campus containing multiple schools.

In order to make this cabling eligible under category two, the Commission sought comment on a proposal to modify the definitions of “internal connections” and “wide area network” to allow applicants to seek funding for wiring between different schools ( e.g., a high school and a middle school) in the same contiguous area as an internal connection. Commenters agree with the need for a change, and we adopt language to implement it and permit multiple schools located on the same property to share a single school campus. We decline to replace “single school” with the phrase “E-Rate eligible site(s)” because the rule language already includes references to libraries. In addition, we remove references to “voice” in the definition of “wide area network” because voice services are no longer eligible for E-Rate support. We received no comments opposing this change.

Definition of Consortium. We also adopt our proposal to amend the definition of “consortium” to align it with the definition of “consortium” used in the Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) program. Our E-Rate rules allowed ineligible private sector entities to join consortia only if the pre-discount prices for interstate services are at tariffed rates. Given that many services have been de-tariffed, we find the definition adopted for the ECF program is more appropriate and do not allow private sector entities to participate in E-Rate consortia. While the American Library Association suggests that we should continue to allow private entities to participate in a consortium, we lack sufficient information to ensure universal service funds are safeguarded with this practice. We also find the ECF definition to more clearly ensure that E-Rate eligible entities are in control of the competitive bidding process and compliance with program rules. Commenters also support this change.

Finally, we amend § 54.503(b) of the Commission's rules to correct a cross reference to the competitive bidding exemptions in § 54.503(e). We also amend § 54.513(d) of the Commission's rules to remove the reference to five years in order to eliminate confusion and align the document retention period with § 54.516(a), which requires retention of documents relating to compliance with the equipment transfer rules for ten years.

Finally, we address SECA's petition for reconsideration and/or clarification regarding the Commission's discussion in the 2023 E-Rate Report and Order of whether the shared use of a category two piece of equipment by a non-instructional facility must be cost allocated from the request for E-Rate funding for that piece of equipment. The Commission provided that if the applicant is choosing the most cost-effective offering for the shared equipment without regard for the non-instructional facility's use, the applicant is not required to cost allocate the non-instructional facility's use of the shared equipment. SECA asserts that the 2023 E-Rate Report and Order and associated regulation, § 54.502(d)(6), are ambiguous and could be construed to limit relief only to those non-instructional facilities where the equipment is physically located, and not to other non-instructional facilities that use the equipment. We now clarify that the use of shared equipment by other non-instructional facilities also does not require cost allocation “[a]s long as the applicant is choosing the most cost-effective offering for the shared equipment ( e.g., a district switch) without regard for the [non-instructional facility's] use.” In a district-wide budget, we find this cost allocation is unnecessarily burdensome given the need for shared equipment within school or library networks to serve their students and library patrons. Accordingly, we grant SECA's petition and amend § 54.502(d)(6) of the Commission's rules to make clear that shared equipment does not require cost allocation of a non-instructional facilities' use.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule changes contained in this Report and Order on small entities.

As required by the RFA, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFAs) in the Promoting Fair and Open Competitive Bidding in the E-Rate Program NPRM, released December 2021 and in the Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released in July 2023. The Commission sought written public comment on the IRFAs. No comments were filed addressing the IRFAs. This FRFA conforms to the RFA and it (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

The Commission is required by section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to promulgate rules to implement the universal service provisions of section 254. On May 8, 1997, the Commission adopted rules to reform its system of universal service support mechanisms so that universal service is preserved and advanced as markets move toward competition. Specifically, under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, also known as the E-Rate program, eligible schools, libraries, and consortia that include eligible schools and libraries may receive discounts for eligible telecommunications services, internet access, and internal connections. The E-Rate program thus plays an important role in expanding digital equity and closing the digital divide. Taking steps to close the digital divide is a top priority for the Commission. The Commission's E-Rate program provides vital support to schools and libraries allowing them to obtain affordable, high-speed broadband services and internal connections, which enables them to connect students and library patrons to critical next-generation learning opportunities and services.

In the Report and Order, we enhance the E-Rate program's competitive bidding rules by establishing the bidding portal. Starting in funding year 2028 (FY 2028), service providers will be required to respond to applicants' FCC Form 470 by uploading their bids into the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)-managed portal and applicants will use the portal to finalize their competitive bidding process. We also create a competitive bidding documentation repository to store applicants' competitive bidding and contract documentation, along with the submitted bids. After applicants complete their bid evaluation process, the evaluation and contract award documentation must be uploaded into the bidding portal. If there is a delay in implementing the portal by FY 2028, applicants are required to upload all competitive bidding documentation ( i.e., bids, correspondence with bidders, evaluation documentation, contracts) when they submit the FY 2028 FCC Form 471 applications. This will ensure the competitive bidding documentation is collected with the FCC Form 471 beginning in FY 2028 and stored in the repository should any delays with implementation occur.

For multi-year contracts, the applicant needs to upload the contract during the first year of the contract, and then reference the existing contract record for the multi-year contract for the subsequent funding years relying on that contract. For existing multi-year contracts that are currently being used to support funding requests, in funding year 2029, applicants will be required to upload the associated bids, competitive bidding, and bid evaluation documents for the multi-year contract into the portal by the time the applicant submits their FCC Forms 471 that rely on that contract. For state master contracts, applicants are required to upload a copy of the state master contract and the related bid documentation to show how they selected the winning bidder. When applicants are required to perform a “mini-bid” evaluation, based on a multi-award state master contract, the documents that the applicant prepared, considered, executed or relied on in connection with the mini-bid process, including those reflecting how the applicant selected the winning bidder among the available vendors in the multi-award state master contract, must also be provided to USAC. For consortium applicants, the consortium lead needs to provide to USAC the competitive bidding and contract documentation related to the consortium's FCC Form 471 application on behalf of its members.

The Report and Order establishes (after seeking comment, if necessary) a bid response template that can optionally be used by service providers when submitting their bids to an applicant's FCC Form 470. This template will allow applicants to more quickly review and evaluate bids from service providers and allow applicants to conduct an apples to apples bid evaluation. This template could also help service providers formulate bids in a more uniform manner and help USAC better utilize data analytics as part of its investigative function. In addition, the bid template can be incorporated into the applicant's FCC Form 471 application to further streamline the time for completing this form.

In addition, the Report and Order adopts proposals from the 2023 FNPRM for streamlining the E-Rate program. The Report and Order refines the process for applicants requesting funding when they are transitioning from one service provider to another during the funding year and provide further guidance on cost allocation rules and procedures in response to stakeholder requests. In the Report and Order, we also make changes and clarifications to the E-Rate competitive bidding requirements, including guidance on mid-year bandwidth increases; when competitive bidding must be restarted; clarifications around spam bids and bids received after the 28 day waiting period. We amend our E-Rate invoicing rules to provide greater flexibility to applicants and service providers that failed to file requests for reimbursements or extensions by the invoice filing deadline and provide a streamlined way to refile requests for reimbursement that were filed timely, but rejected after the invoice filing deadline. We also adopt the proposal to remove the requirement that applicants file the FCC Form 486 (Receipt of Service Confirmation and Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Certification Form) for future funding years, beginning in FY 2028. We find the notification that services have started to be duplicative and we transfer the remaining CIPA compliance certifications to the FCC Form 471 funding application. In order to move the CIPA certification, beginning in funding year 2028, consortia applicants will need to collect the annual FCC Form 479, the Certification by Administrative Authority to Billed Entity of Compliance with the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Form, prior to the Billed Entity certifying a consortium's CIPA compliance on the FCC Form 471 application. This aligns the timing of the FCC Form 479 with both the FCC Form 471 application filing window and the existing timeline for applicant entities to demonstrate that a consortium billed entity applicant has authorization to file on behalf of its member entities. Lastly, we update several E-Rate program definitions.

These actions allow the Commission and USAC to improve efficiencies in the E-Rate competitive bidding process, thus better ensuring that limited E-Rate funds are more effectively used by schools and libraries to connect students and library patrons to critical next-generation learning opportunities and services. The requirements in the Report and Order will allow the Commission and USAC to better identify and remediate instances of waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the E-Rate competitive bidding, improve transparency and competition associated with E-Rate bidding processes, and ensure that limited E-Rate funds are spent efficiently, including by reducing the number of denials, rescissions, and recoveries of funding, and audit findings based on an applicant's failure to retain or otherwise produce competitive bidding documentation after receiving E-Rate program funding commitment(s). The requirements will also promote greater accountability and enhance program integrity as USAC will have timely access to the competitive bidding and contract documentation associated with each FCC Form 471 application.

These actions are expected to lessen the burden on applicants in responding to requests from USAC and auditors for applicants' contract related documentation, as this documentation will be uploaded into the bidding portal at the time the applicants have completed their competitive bid process and signed contracts with their service providers. As part of the Report and Order, we also direct USAC to prepare training and outreach materials that will enable applicants and service providers to successfully participate in the E-Rate program and avoid common errors that lead to audit findings and improper payments. This action is also expected to lessen burdens on E-Rate applicants by ensuring that they have the information and tools they need comply with program rules and requirements. We also direct USAC, at the direction of the Bureau, to add guidance on their website and seek stakeholder feedback on the technical aspects of the development of the portal via means that will provide constructive input, such as user testing.

Comments expressed concerns that a bidding portal may increase burden, costs and discourage small schools, libraries, and vendors from participating. The proposals adopted in this Report and Order, require applicants to upload documents that they already are required to retain and produce under our rules and provides a centralized place for service providers to submit bids and communicate with applicants about any questions they may have. Currently, to initiate the competitive bidding process, applicants are required to complete and upload their FCC Form 470 applications and documentation into EPC. As such, E-Rate program participants already possess the requisite skills they need to comply with these new requirements and other than adjusting how this documentation is shared with the Commission and USAC, the proposals adopted are not intended to change the way applicants or service providers conduct their competitive bidding processes. Therefore, we disagree that the competitive bidding portal will discourage applicants or service providers from participating in the E-Rate program and that the burden of the adopted changes will be substantial. To the extent that the portal does alter the rules, we expect that it leans towards a more fair, open, and transparent process, resulting in the cost effectiveness of the proposed services and reduction of waste. The use of the document repository will aid smaller entities with compliance with recordkeeping requirements because all the required documents would be uploaded and available in the portal.

Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, and also provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the adopted rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.

Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.

The rules adopted in the Report and Order will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we conclude that the adopted rules will impact a substantial number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the identified industries.

The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of adopted rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

The purpose of the Report and Order is to strengthen the competitive bidding rules for the E-Rate program by requiring applicants to submit their competitive bidding and contract related documentation into the competitive bidding portal, and also to streamline the E-Rate administrative process, as detailed in section A. Small entity applicants are already required to retain this documentation under § 54.516(a) of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we expect that the burden of uploading the documentation will not be substantial. Under our adopted rules, once an applicant uploads the competitive bidding documentation into the bidding portal, applicants will be able to access this documentation when needed and provide it to other local, state, or federal agencies with jurisdiction over the applicant as necessary. Thus, by preserving this documentation in the bidding portal and repository, the portal will assist in ensuring compliance with the competitive bidding recordkeeping and production requirements set forth in § 54.516(a)-(b) of the Commission's rules. In adopting this requirement, we do not make any modifications to § 54.516(a) of the Commission's rules. However, applicants and service providers do not need to separately retain documents that are also uploaded to the competitive bidding portal and can rely on this documentation to meet their document retention requirements. Moreover, the new process reduces the likelihood that small entity applicants will receive, and respond to, outreach communications from USAC and its auditors, related to their compliance with E-Rate program's competitive bidding rules.

Under our new rules, applicants can continue to hold conferences or other meetings. Questions and answers that were provided during the meeting and are relevant to the competitive bidding process must be uploaded to the competitive bidding portal within 72 hours to ensure that all potential bidders have access to the same information, and the competitive bidding process is fair and open to all bidders. A summary of all meetings held between the applicant and any potential bidders must be uploaded to the competitive bidding portal by the time the FCC Form 471 is filed. This affords applicants the ability to hold these important conferences and walkthroughs without raising a concern about certain bidders having conversations with an applicant in a manner that gives special treatment. Internal communications between the applicant's bid evaluation team do not need to uploaded, but the final bid evaluation results must be uploaded. The documentation included in the portal should be similar to the documentation applicant and service providers are already required to retain and produce under the Commission's rules.

We estimate that the cost of creating, implementing, and managing the competitive bidding portal for the first year of operation will be under $750,000, followed thereafter by annual operating costs of around $100,000 to $200,000, which together represents a comparatively low cost to take measures to protect a program where the funding cap in funding year 2026 is $5.2 billion. Notably, the competitive bidding portal will be integrated into the existing EPC system, minimizing costs to both the Universal Service Fund and stakeholders, while ensuring that E-Rate program participants will be able to quickly adjust to the new requirements.

Further, the creation of a standardized bid template will reduce the burden on small applicants to compare bids as compared to existing E-Rate processes. We also direct USAC to enhance its E-Rate training and outreach materials for use by applicants that will help applicants avoid common errors that lead to audit findings and improper payments. Also, the improvements made in the Report and Order to streamline the E-Rate administrative process may result in new or reduced reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance obligations for small entities. The Commission's rule modifications will simplify the E-Rate application and reimbursement process for small entities. For example, if a small entity wishes to transition service during a funding year, the applicant may request a funding commitment for a partial year of both services and then file a request for a post commitment change once the applicant knows the cutover dates. We also amend our rules to allow small applicants and service providers to request a single 120-day extension of the original invoice filing deadline if the request is made within 15 days of the original invoice filing deadline. We also adopt the proposal to remove the requirement that applicants file the FCC Form 486 for future funding years, beginning in FY 2028. The Commission anticipates these modifications will not require small entities to hire professionals to comply with the new rules, will have modest cost implications and should reduce compliance requirements for small entities that may have smaller staff and fewer resources. As such, we expect that the Commission's rule modifications will reduce the economic impact of current compliance obligations on small entities.

The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”

In the Report and Order, we take steps to minimize the economic impact on small entities through the rule changes that we have adopted. In considering whether to establish a competitive bidding and repository portal, we disagree with commenters that believe the portal will be unnecessary or substantially burdensome. Though the portal will require new or additional document submissions, we find that these obligations are outweighed by the Commission's goals of strengthening the E-Rate program by reducing the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse. As an initial matter, we expect that any burden on applicants to upload documentation as specified by the new rules will be offset, in part or in full, by the lessened burden on applicants to consider and prepare responses to outreach communications from USAC, and its auditors, related to their compliance with the E-Rate program's rules. Moreover, we take a number of additional steps in the Report and Order to provide small entity E-Rate applicants with maximum flexibility in reducing their potential costs of compliance with the document upload requirements. For multi-year contracts, our rules require to applicants to provide the required competitive bidding and contract documentation only once, thus avoiding additional burdens on applicants for uploading duplicative competitive bidding and contract documentation for the remainder of the contract's term. This approach minimizes burdens on these applicants as compared to an alternative potential requirement that they upload this documentation with each year's funding cycle. For existing multi-year contracts that are currently being used to support funding requests, in funding year 2029, applicants will be required to upload the associated bids, competitive bidding, and bid evaluation documents for the multi-year contract into the portal by the time the applicant submits their FCC Forms 471 that rely on that contract. For consortium applicants, we only require that the consortium leader upload the competitive bidding and contract documentation related to the consortium's FCC Form 471 application on behalf of its members, thus avoiding an additional burden on each member to perform a similar upload. Removing the requirement that applicants file the FCC Form 486 will also lessen the burden on applicants.

In the Report and Order, we considered the alternative proposal to adopt a repository without the proposed competitive bidding portal. However, implementing a repository alone would fail to address Office of Inspector General's and the United States Department of Justice's concerns with bid collusion and bid alteration. Additionally, in the Report and Order, we also consider a number of alternatives designed to streamline the E-Rate administrative process, many of which result in rule changes that will minimize the economic impact for small applicants to the E-Rate program. For example, the Commission aims to alleviate burdensome cost allocation by not requiring an applicant to cost allocate the non-instructional facility's use of shared equipment. This provision should eliminate unnecessary burden for small entities, given the need for shared equipment within school or library networks to serve their students and library patrons. We clarify our cost allocation rules to limit the burden on all applicants, including small entities, clarifying that if at least 90% of an applicant's requested category one data or internet service is being used for eligible purposes, the remaining ineligible portion is presumed to be ancillary and, therefore, cost allocation is not required. We also update our invoicing rules to provide a 15-day period after the original invoice filing deadline for applicants and service provides to request a single 120-day extension of the original invoice filing deadline, instead of allowing multiple extensions because many requests are filed in a timely manner, and providers with special circumstances may request a waiver from the Commission. Such a change will provide small entities that miss the deadline by a short period of time with the opportunity to still receive E-Rate funding if they fail to file their requests for reimbursement by the deadline.

Moreover, in the Report and Order, we direct USAC, with oversight from the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and the Office of the Managing Director (OMD), to create a bid response template (after seeking comment, if necessary) for service providers to use when responding to applicants' FCC Forms 470. The optional use of this bid response template by service providers will standardize bid responses that applicants receive and make it easier for applicants to compare bids, thus reducing their burdens for conducting competitive bidding as required by E-Rate rules. Applicants choosing to use the template can require potential bidders to use the template bid response form by stating that use of the template is a requirement for responding to its FCC Form 470. We will determine in the future whether to require mandatory use of a standardized bid response form by service providers. We also direct USAC to enhance its training and outreach materials to better assist E-Rate participants with complying with the Commission's competitive bidding rules. These enhanced training and outreach materials will reduce applicant confusion thus reducing burdens on applicants for complying with E-Rate rules. We also direct USAC, at the direction of the Bureau, to add guidance on their website and seek stakeholder feedback on the technical aspects of the development of the portal via means that will provide constructive input, such as user testing. Further, we direct the Bureau to take into account when the new portal was adopted when considering requests for waiver, particularly for procedural or administrative errors by smaller or more rural participants.

Finally, to the extent that these rules introduce new compliance burdens on applicants in some respects, those burdens are outweighed by the benefits to applicants. These rules will better ensure that applicants receive and retain funding from the E-Rate program by reducing the number of denials, rescissions, and recoveries of funding, as well as by reducing audit findings based on an applicant's failure to retain or otherwise produce competitive bidding documentation after receiving E-Rate program funding commitment(s).

The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy and will publish a copy of the Report and Order, and this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or summaries thereof) in the Federal Register .

Paperwork Reduction Act. This Report and Order contains new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the revised information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, the Commission previously sought specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. We provide guidance to applicants, service providers, and USAC, and modify the rule language regarding post-commitment requests to extend the invoice filing deadline under § 54.514(a)(3). In 2020, the Commission addressed an issue in the program rules that left applicants with some pending post-commitment requests or appeals unable to invoice by the invoice filing deadline. To fix the issue, the Commission amended the invoicing deadline rules to provide 120 days from the date of a Revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter approving a post-commitment request or a successful appeal. Such relief is limited to approvals of timely filed post-commitment requests that affect invoicing, like service substitutions filed prior to the service delivery deadline or service provider changes. Reduction or cancellation of a portion of a funding request would not, for example, result in additional time to invoice. We amend the rule now to provide applicants and service providers with clarity without notice and comment in accordance with the exception to the APA for procedural rules. The updated rule will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that the rules are non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

Accordingly, it is ordered , that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1 through 4, 201-202, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-202, 254, 303(r), and 403, this Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration IS ADOPTED and effective thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register .

It is further ordered , that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1 through 4, 201 through 202, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-202, 254, 303(r), and 403, Part 54 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 54, is AMENDED, and such rule amendments shall be effective thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register , except for §§ 54.503(c)(4)-(6) and 54.504(d)(1)(iv), which contains information collection requirements that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The FCC will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for these sections.

It is further ordered , pursuant to the authority contained in section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and § 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that the Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification of the State E-rate Coordinators' Alliance on September 6, 2023, IS GRANTED.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows:

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), a species warrants reclassification from endangered to threatened if it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range). The rough popcornflower is listed as endangered, and we are reclassifying (downlisting) the rough popcornflower as threatened. We have determined the rough popcornflower does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered species but it does meet the definition of a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future). Reclassifying a species as a threatened species can be completed only by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ).

What this document does. This rule downlists the rough popcornflower from endangered to threatened on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (List), with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act, based on the species' current status, which has been improved through implementation of conservation actions including additional monitoring that has revealed populations and plants not known at the time of listing.

The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of five 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. We may reclassify a species if the best scientific and commercial data available indicate the species no longer meets the applicable definition in the Act. Based on the status review, the current threats analysis, and evaluation of conservation measures discussed in this rule, we conclude that the rough popcornflower no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered species and should be reclassified to a threatened species. The species is no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, but is likely to become so within the foreseeable future.

We have determined that the rough popcornflower is a threatened species due to the following threats: destruction and/or alteration of habitat by development and hydrological changes ( e.g., wetland fills, draining, construction), competition from nonnative invasive plant species, impacts due to climate change ( e.g., winter flooding, drier summer soils, and decreased fruit production), and lack of regulatory mechanisms.

Please refer to the proposed rule to reclassify the rough popcornflower, published on December 11, 2024 (89 FR 99809), for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.

A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for the rough popcornflower. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing and recovery actions under the Act ( https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf ), we solicited independent scientific review of the information contained in the rough popcornflower SSA report. As discussed in the proposed rule, we sent the SSA report to three independent peer reviewers and received two responses. The peer reviews can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2024-0005. In preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule. A summary of the peer review comments and our responses can be found in the proposed rule (89 FR 99811-99812).

We received two responses to our request for information on the proposed rule during the public comment period. Only the submission from the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) raised substantive issues that needed to be fully considered and addressed. We summarize these issues in the 7 comments and provide our responses below (See Summary of Comments and Recommendations). Minor, nonsubstantive changes and corrections were made in response to comments on the proposed rule and are reflected throughout this final rule. The information we received during the comment period on the proposed rule did not change our determination for either reclassifying the rough popcornflower as a threatened species under the Act or the 4(d) rule for the species.

The ODA submitted comments that included additional information on current population numbers from recent surveys and refined population areas. Surveys were conducted by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), ODA, and the Service. In addition, Service staff conducted visits of some rough popcornflower populations to get new estimates of population size and area coverage. In response, we updated the population numbers and area for all populations of rough popcornflower where available. This new information resulted in one more downlisting criterion being fulfilled and changed the degree to which other recovery criteria have been met. We updated the number of populations reaching certain recovery criteria where applicable throughout this final rule.

Finally, we developed an addendum to accompany the SSA report version 1.0 that contains the updated population and area data for the rough popcornflower that became available since the publication of the proposed rule on December 11, 2024 (89 FR 99809). The addendum also contains updated monitoring information for all populations of rough popcornflower (USFWS 2026, entire).

In the proposed rule published on December 11, 2024 (89 FR 99809), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by February 10, 2025. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribal entities, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in The News-Review. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information received during the comment period has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.

(1) Comment: ODA commented that data presented in the proposed downlisting rule (89 FR 99809) did not adequately demonstrate that the downlisting criteria in the 2019 amendment to the recovery plan for rough popcornflower (USFWS 2019, entire) had been fully met, though they agreed that rough popcornflower merits downlisting from endangered to threatened.

Our response: In accordance with section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the downlisting determination for rough popcornflower is based on the best scientific and commercial data available to the Service. While we consider recovery plans to be `roadmaps' to guide recovery, they are not binding regulatory documents, and achievement, or lack of achievement, of specific recovery criteria therein does not automatically confer regulatory status under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Ultimately, our determination of listing status is based on an evaluation of whether a species meets the definition of a threatened or endangered species under the Act. Therefore, in our SSA, we analyzed population resiliency, redundancy, and representation to evaluate whether a species still meets the definition of “endangered.” In the case of the rough popcornflower, we determined that the best scientific and commercial data available supports downlisting the species from endangered to threatened. For more information on the viability of the species, please see the SSA (USFWS 2021, entire). Responses to ODA's comments on specific recovery criteria not being fully met are provided below.

(2) Comment: ODA stated that our assessment that 10 of 12 reserves meet recovery criterion 1 (see Background for descriptions of the recovery criteria) is misleading because two populations are not legally protected. Further, they stated that the definition of a “reserve” requires both a minimum population size (5,000 plants) and formal protection with management for long-term survival. ODA commented that two rough popcornflower populations (Horsepasture 2 and TNC/ODOT Popcornswale Preserve) are not legally protected, and it is unclear if they are managed specifically to protect the species.

Our response: We agree that the two rough popcornflower populations on privately held property do not have formal protection. We consider formal protection to be habitat secured through ownership or management arrangement that ensures long-term preservation of the habitat features on which rough popcornflower depends. We acknowledge the Horsepasture 2 population occurs on privately held land that is not managed specifically to protect rough popcornflower, and it is not subject to any legal land or regulatory protection (except for requirements for consultation with the Service for any Federal actions that may affect the rough popcornflower). We now consider the property unprotected and have removed it as a “reserve” population.

We consider the TNC/ODOT Popcornswale Preserve population, which contains lands owned by both TNC and ODOT, to be a reserve due to: (1) our long-term partnership with TNC; and (2) the protections in place on the portion of the lands owned by ODOT. We have cooperated with TNC on many occasions to augment the rough popcornflower population, restore habitat, and survey the TNC/ODOT Popcornswale Preserve population. TNC has partnered with many of our agency's initiatives and programs throughout the United States for many years, including a Jobs in the Woods program at the TNC/ODOT Popcornswale Preserve that focused on rehabilitating wet prairie at the Popcornswale Preserve through removal of trees and shrubs and the control of nonnative invasive species to benefit rough popcornflower (USFWS 2003a, entire). We maintain close communication with TNC regarding the rough popcornflower population at this site.

The rough popcornflower is afforded protection by state law on the ODOT portion of this population, under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 564.010-.994 ( e.g., ORS 564.115, Protection and conservation programs). Because the ODOT's Popcornswale property lies adjacent to and is part of the same biological population as the TNC property, we consider the ODOT population to independently meet “reserve” level population status without considering the portion of the population that falls on TNC property. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we consider the TNC/ODOT Popcornswale Preserve population to be a reserve.

(3) Comment: ODA commented that criterion 3, which requires a specific distribution of reserve populations throughout the three recovery units and areas outside the recovery units, has not been met. ODA remarked that there is a need for one more qualifying reserve in both the Sutherlin and Calapooya Creek recovery units to meet the criterion, though they consider the intent of criterion 3 met. ODA commented that we should meet these requirements or formally revise them with clear scientific justification before proceeding with downlisting the rough popcornflower.

Our response: In the past several years, new census data has resulted in updated population numbers for the rough popcornflower populations. These data refine the area estimates for populations of rough popcornflower, which changed the number of populations that met the distribution requirement for criterion 3. Currently, there are four reserves in the Sutherlin Creek recovery unit (Orenco Ponds, ODOT Wilbur, ODOT Popcornswale, and Southside Swale), one reserve in the Yoncalla Creek recovery unit (Yoncalla 2), no reserves in the Calapooya Creek recovery unit, and one reserve located in the North Bank Habitat Management Area (Middle Barn), that meet criterion 3. Although not considered a reserve, the Horsepasture 2 population meets both area and population requirements for criterion 3, as well. The most recent survey data indicate that 12 populations, including Horsepasture 2, exceed 5,000 plants distributed across all recovery units and the Umpqua Management Area, and 8 populations exceed 500 square meters (m 2 ) (5,382 square feet (ft 2 )) of plant cover. Considering this updated information, we find that the intent of criterion 3 has been met.

It is not a requirement of the Act that we revise recovery criteria prior to undertaking a reclassification. Recovery plans provide roadmaps to species recovery but are not required to achieve recovery of a species or to evaluate it for downlisting. In addition, recovery plans are nonbinding documents that rely on voluntary participation from landowners, land managers, and other recovery partners. A determination of the status for a valid, extant species is made solely on the question of whether it meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species. As explained below (see Final Reclassification Decision), the rough popcornflower no longer meets the definition of an endangered species but meets the definition of a threatened species.

(4) Comment: ODA commented that monitoring data presented in the proposed rule do not fully support the criterion 4 objective that stable or increasing population trends occur over a 5-year period for at least seven reserve populations, with only six reserve populations showing population stability and three other populations without sufficient data.

Our response: New data obtained since the proposed rule now show that nine reserve populations have a stable or increasing population trend over a 5-year period (USFWS 2026, entire); thus, this criterion is met.

(5) Comment: ODA commented that persistent threats to rough popcornflower remain across its range and should be routinely addressed to ensure the species persists. They suggested that one-third of the rough popcornflower populations are small, at risk of exposure to development or succession, and likely to suffer from genetic isolation and other genetic problems. In addition, they expressed concern that rough popcornflower populations face challenges from a changing climate, lack of secure regulatory requirements to protect the species, and invasive species.

Our response: We review the best scientific and commercial data available when conducting a threats analysis. The identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that a species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act. In considering what factors might constitute a threat, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the exposure is likely to cause actual impacts to the species and the degree to which these factors are currently impacting and likely to impact the species within the foreseeable future.

We agree with ODA that the factors identified present some level of continued threat to the species into the future, and we discuss these population-level threats in the context of the overall species-level population and occupied area trends in the SSA (USFWS 2021, pp. 17-26). However, the species has recovered to the point at which it is no longer currently in danger of extinction but is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. While some populations remain small and potentially isolated, the majority of rough popcornflower populations support more than 5,000 individuals each, which is the population size at which the species is resilient to disturbances and less susceptible to stochastic events and genetic issues. Connectivity between populations has also improved since the initial listing of the species, helping to alleviate potential genetic isolation for some populations.

Competition with nonnative invasive plants remains an ongoing threat for the rough popcornflower, primarily due to habitat encroachment and elimination of bare ground needed for popcornflower seed germination. However, nonnative invasive species management remains a priority for many of the land managers where rough popcornflower is found, and investments in weed control and improved invasive species management have contributed to the species' stable or increasing populations (USFWS 2021, p. 24). While these efforts need to be maintained, the impact of nonnative invasive plants can be managed.

Rough popcornflower has the potential to be negatively impacted by climate change, primarily due to the increased variability of precipitation leading to periods of prolonged drought interspersed by years with heavy rainfall events. This variation in precipitation could increase the frequency at which wetlands dry before rough popcornflower has completed the flowering and fruiting stage. Temperatures could also rise above those suitable for growth of the species. Conservation efforts have increased the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation such that the species is now better able to sustain viability through changing climate conditions, though we agree these impacts may persist in the foreseeable future (UWFWS 2021, pp. 24-25).

Rough popcornflower is a conservation-reliant species, and significant progress has been made in protecting and managing sites supporting the species through the use of conservation efforts such as vegetation control, reintroductions and augmentation, and conservation agreements. At the time of listing, rough popcornflower was known to consist of approximately 7,000 individuals in 8 populations. With implementation of recovery actions and the discovery of previously unknown populations, there are currently over 2,000,000 plants in 18 populations. While challenges for the species remain, the current and future viability of the species supports a status change to downlist from an endangered species to a threatened species under the Act.

(6) Comment: ODA commented that the analysis of resiliency, redundancy, and representation under Scenario B indicating that the viability of rough popcornflower is not likely to be significantly reduced over the next 30 years is overly optimistic given the current threats facing rough popcornflower.

Our response: Future scenarios are not intended to function as predictions; rather, they are a tool for assessing the potential long-term viability of the species in response to a range of plausible future conditions.

In our assessment of future viability of the species in the SSA report, we considered better than expected (Scenario A), moderate (Scenario B), and worse than expected (Scenario C) scenarios that examined species viability over the next 30 years (USFWS 2021, pp. 41-47). We include these scenarios to capture the full range of plausible futures for rough popcornflower. Scenario B is the most likely scenario based on current condition trajectories; it estimates that government agencies, non-profit conservation organizations, academic institutions, and private landowners will continue to collaborate and contribute conservation resources to the rough popcornflower and its habitats. Scenario A, the upper plausible limit, projects even greater conservation effort. Scenario C projects conservation efforts decrease from current levels. Therefore, Scenario B is only one of the plausible future outcomes we considered for the species and falls between the upper and lower condition outcomes. No one scenario is relied on to assess the status of the species. Rather, we look at the entire range of plausible outcomes to inform the status determination.

(7) Comment: ODA commented that it is misleading to suggest that conservation measures and recovery actions of partners are responsible for the increase of known plants from about 7,000 at the time of listing to over 800,000 at the time of the proposed rule (now over 2,000,000 with updated survey information).

Our response: We amended language in the rule to attribute some population increases to reintroduction, augmentation, and restoration efforts, and attribute other population increases to the discovery of existing populations that were not known or completely censused at the time of the listing. We further note that we consider the discovery of additional populations to be the direct result of recovery plan-driven survey efforts by partners such as ODOT, ODA, Phoenix School volunteers, and TNC and their volunteers.

Rough popcornflower is an herbaceous plant in the borage or “forget-me-not” family (Boraginaceae) and is endemic to the Umpqua River basin in Douglas County, Oregon, with populations concentrated in the Sutherlin Creek drainage (figure 1). It is closely associated with emergent wetlands within seasonally wet meadows or prairie and relatively level, open habitats formed from poor draining clay-loam soils.

Rough popcornflower can be either an annual or a short-lived perennial. Individual rough popcornflower plants are between 7 centimeters (cm) (2.75 inches (in)) and 60 cm (23.6 in) tall, with narrow, bright-green leaves. Their trumpet-shaped, non-fragrant flowers consist of five fused petals and are mostly white with yellow centers. Rough popcornflower plants, whether annual or perennial, reach sexual maturity and produce fruits in their first year. The plants generally germinate in the fall, bloom in late spring and early summer, produce seed beginning in late June, and then senesce between July and November. The species is capable of either self-fertilization or cross-fertilization; however, generalist insect pollination appears to be the predominant vector enabling rough popcornflower reproduction (Amsberry and Meinke 2001, pp. 12-13). A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the rough popcornflower is presented in the SSA report, version 1.0 (USFWS 2021, entire).

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, that the species be removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to delist a species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.

There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance provided in a recovery plan.

We completed a final recovery plan for the rough popcornflower in 2003 (USFWS 2003b, entire) and amended the plan in 2019 (USFWS 2019, entire). The objective of the original recovery plan for rough popcornflower was to reduce the threats and increase population viability to the point that the species could be downlisted to threatened status (USFWS 2003b, p. 21). The original recovery plan assigned each known natural population to one of three recovery units (Calapooya Creek, Sutherlin Creek, and Yoncalla Creek). The recovery units each corresponded to a drainage basin within the Lower North Umpqua system and represented groups of populations which share phenotypic similarities and are potentially genetically similar. The original recovery plan also established recovery criteria for downlisting (USFWS 2003b, pp. 21-22). At that time, the information available was insufficient to identify recovery criteria for delisting. The 2019 recovery plan amendment evaluated the adequacy of existing recovery criteria, amended downlisting criteria, added delisting criteria, and presented rationale supporting the recovery plan modification (USFWS 2019, entire).

Below are the downlisting criteria for the rough popcornflower as amended in 2019 (USFWS 2019, pp. 4-6), and the progress made to date toward achieving each criterion.

Criterion 1 states that at least 9 reserves, containing a minimum of 5,000 plants each, are protected and managed to assure their long-term survival. A reserve refers to one or more patches of rough popcornflower located within 1 kilometer (km) (0.6 miles (mi) of each other that are protected from development and managed for the continued existence of the species (USFWS 2019, p. 3). The minimum population size of 5,000 individuals per reserve is intended to provide sufficient resiliency to withstand stochastic events (Culotta 1995, pp. 31-32; Traill et al. 2007, p. 164). The number of reserves is intended to provide sufficient redundancy such that rough popcornflower is not at risk of extinction due to catastrophic events. The maximum distance between patches within a reserve provides connectivity for pollinator-mediated gene flow across the population (USFWS 2019, p. 4).

At the time of listing, our knowledge of rough popcornflower abundance and distribution was limited to approximately 7,000 known plants in 8 populations (USFWS 2021, p. 9). Since then, many conservation partners have made significant contributions to rough popcornflower recovery efforts, including additional monitoring that has revealed populations and plants not known at the time of listing. For example, the ODA collected seed, sowed seed for use by multiple partners, augmented existing populations, conducted monitoring, and provided technical expertise. Other conservation partners, such as the Douglas Soil and Water Conservation District, City of Sutherlin, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), have committed to conservation measures that include habitat restoration followed by seeding on several properties (USFWS 2001, entire; USFWS 2004, entire; USFWS 2023c, entire). Recent surveys (USFWS 2021, appendix 3; USFWS 2022, entire; USFWS 2023a, entire; USFWS2025, entire) documented a total of 11 rough popcornflower reserves. All 11 of those reserves are protected and managed, while 1 additional population (a privately owned parcel containing over 1,000,000 plants) is currently adequately supporting rough popcornflower but is not protected and thus not considered a reserve (table 1).

Ten of the 11 reserves meet the minimum population size of 5,000 individuals per reserve to fully satisfy criterion 1 (USFWS 2026, entire). This number of plants and the distribution of populations is expected to enable rough popcornflower to withstand both stochastic and catastrophic events, and to maintain the capacity to adapt to future environmental changes. As such, we conclude that this downlisting criterion has been met and exceeded.

Criterion 2 states a minimum of 500 m 2 (5,382 ft 2 ) is occupied by rough popcornflower within each of the 9 reserves called for in criterion 1. The intent of this criterion is to have multiple populations large enough to maintain sufficient resiliency to withstand stochastic events.

Six of the 10 reserves that meet criterion 1 contain at least 500 m 2 (5,382 ft 2 ) of occupied habitat to meet the description of criterion 2. Two other populations (Deady and Horsepasture 2) also meet or exceed the area coverage parameter but do not satisfy the criterion as they are not considered to be protected populations (see table 1, below). Although this criterion is not fully met as identified in the 2019 amendment to the recovery plan, there are eight populations that meet or exceed the area coverage parameter (USFWS 2026, entire). These eight populations are sufficiently spatially distributed across the species' range to enable the species to withstand both stochastic and catastrophic events, and to maintain the capacity to adapt to future environmental changes. We conclude that the intent of this criterion has been met.

Criterion 3 states that a minimum of nine reserves, each meeting criteria 1 and 2, are distributed across the recovery units, with a minimum of five reserves in the Sutherlin Creek recovery unit and at least one reserve each in the Yoncalla Creek and Calapooya Creek recovery units. The remaining two reserves may be located within any of the natural recovery units or elsewhere within the watersheds containing the recovery units. The intent of this criterion is to provide sufficient redundancy of populations across the species' range to allow the species to withstand catastrophic events.

Of the six reserves meeting criteria 1 and 2, four are in the Sutherlin Creek recovery unit, one is in the Yoncalla Creek recovery unit, none are in the Calapooya Creek recovery unit, and one is in the Umpqua Management Area, which includes introduced populations of rough popcornflower in the BLM's North Bank Habitat Management Area (USFWS 2026, entire).

Criterion 3 has not been fully met because the number of reserves fully meeting both criteria 1 and 2 is not met, and one fewer reserve than is indicated in the criterion currently exists in both the Sutherlin Creek and Calapooya Creek recovery units. However, the distribution of 12 populations that each exceed 5,000 plants (10 meeting criterion 1) across all recovery units and the Umpqua Management Area, and 8 populations that exceed 500 m 2 (5,382 ft 2 ) occupied by rough popcornflower, demonstrate that relatively large populations are spatially distributed across the species' range. Although reserve populations are not distributed as prescribed in the recovery plan, the distribution and number of populations exceeding 5,000 plants indicate the species is likely to be sufficiently resilient to catastrophic events. Therefore, we find that the intent of this downlisting criterion has been met.

Criterion 4 states that over a period of 5 years, with a minimum of 3 individual years of monitoring, demographic data indicate at least seven of the nine reserves referenced in criterion 1 have average population numbers that are stable or increasing, without decreasing trends lasting more than 2 years. Stable or increasing populations are an indicator of resiliency. While some inter-annual variability is expected due to demographic and environmental stochasticity, this criterion is intended to provide sufficient confidence that large, sustained declines will not occur. Population monitoring, which entails taking a full plant census, occurs in late spring or early summer, either annually or biannually. We monitor populations on private, city, or county land when authorized to do so. Alternatively, we provide funding through the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund to the ODA to monitor populations. Conservation partners, including the BLM, ODOT, and TNC monitor populations on their lands biennially.

Nine of the 10 rough popcornflower reserves that meet criterion 1 also currently meet this criterion (see table 1, below), and thus this downlisting criterion is met. Although the remaining reserve meeting criterion 1 has not been monitored with sufficient frequency to satisfy all of the requirements of this criterion (ODOT Wilbur Mitigation Site), it has maintained relatively stable population numbers between monitoring events from 2011-2024 (USFWS 2021 pp. 13-16; USFWS 2022, entire; USFWS 2023a, entire; USFWS 2025, entire). Having all 10 of the reserve populations exhibiting stable or increasing numbers across the range of the species demonstrates that rough popcornflower has sufficient resiliency to respond to inter-annual environmental variability and is unlikely to experience sustained declines across its range.

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened species.

The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any 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.

These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects. We consider these same five factors in downlisting a species from endangered to threatened.

We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.

However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species.

The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; “M- Opinion,” available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf ). The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best scientific and commercial data available and taking into account considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can make reasonably reliable predictions. “Reliable” does not mean “certain”; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of the Act.

The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision on whether the species should be reclassified as a threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.

To assess the rough popcornflower's viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.

The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' future condition, including responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best scientific and commercial data available to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.

The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2024-0005 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2500.

In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the SSA (USFWS 2021, entire) documents our comprehensive biological status review for the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species. The following is a summary of this status review and the best scientific and commercial data available gathered since that time that have informed this decision.

Rough popcornflower typically occupies seasonally wet meadows or prairie, seasonally ponding mudflats, and Oregon ash ( Fraxinus latifolia ) swale openings dominated by native wetland-associated plants in valley lowlands where the ground is moist well into the summer season. Rough popcornflower requires early seral habitat and is not associated with dense tree or shrub canopies. Periodic disturbance ( e.g., flooding, fire, mowing, or grazing) is necessary to control nonnative invasive plant competitors and maintain the early seral and open habitat conditions in which rough popcornflower populations thrive. Several insects are known to pollinate rough popcornflower: honeybees ( Apis spp.); bumble bees ( Bombus spp.); halictid and megachilid bees; Hemiptera (true bugs); bombyliid, syrphid, and tachinid flies; and red-shouldered ctenucha moths (C tenucha rubroscapus ). These insects require diverse native vegetation and minimal pesticide exposure.

Resilient rough popcornflower populations need enough individuals to withstand stochastic events and disturbances. The minimum viable population size for rough popcornflower has not been identified. However, the recovery plan characterizes 5,000 plants as approximately the number of plants required to achieve an effective population size of 500—the minimum effective population size where an isolated population is likely to be resilient to most disturbances and capable of resisting inbreeding depression (USFWS 2003b, p. 17; USFWS 2019, p. 4). Though some current populations may have fewer than 5,000 plants, taking into consideration other factors such as habitat quantity, habitat quality, connectivity, management, protection, reproduction, they may still be considered to have high resiliency (USFWS 2021, p. 31). For rough popcornflower to be considered viable as a species, it must be able to withstand catastrophic events and adapt to environmental changes. This can be achieved with sufficient resilient populations distributed across the species' geographic range, representing the range of ecological settings in which the species is known to exist. The minimum number of populations required for rough popcornflower has not been determined. However, distribution and abundance goals laid out in the recovery plan (USFWS 2003b, pp. 21-22; USFWS 2019, pp. 4-8) and described above under Recovery Criteria provide a benchmark for evaluating the species' condition.

When we listed rough popcornflower as endangered (65 FR 3866; January 25, 2000), the primary threats were identified as habitat alteration by wetland filling and development, livestock grazing (or herbivory), and competition from nonnative invasive species. Small, isolated populations contributed toward the species' vulnerability to these threats. Lesser potential threats included overcollection for scientific or horticultural purposes, vandalism, the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, road maintenance, fire, and flooding (65 FR 3866 at 3870-3872; January 25, 2000). Since the time of listing, we found that the primary threats to rough popcornflower are habitat alteration by wetland filling and development, competition from native and nonnative species, impacts due to climate change, and lack of regulatory mechanisms. The best available information does not indicate that livestock grazing, overcollection, vandalism, road maintenance, fire or flooding currently pose a threat to the species (USFWS 2003b, p. 13; USFWS 2023b, entire).

In the final listing rule (65 FR 3866 at 3869; January 25, 2000), we described how rough popcornflower populations had become fragmented due to draining and filling of wetlands from properties being developed. At the time of listing, only five populations of rough popcornflower were protected from detrimental land-use activities. Currently, 11 of the 18 populations are under Federal, State, municipal, or land trust protections. Education efforts have increased recognition of rough popcornflower habitat, as well as avoidance, minimization, or mitigation of development impacts. Because 11 of the 18 known populations are now protected, the threat posed by detrimental land use activities has been significantly reduced since the time of listing. However, the lack of formal commitments for the long-term beneficial management of rough popcornflower in the remaining 7 populations (approximately 47 percent of the total number of individuals rangewide) means that the threat of detrimental land-use activities remains in some parts of the species' distribution.

In the final listing rule (65 FR 3866 at 3869-3870; January 25, 2000), we described the distribution of the rough popcornflower as 17 small patches of 1 to 3,000 plants (8 populations with approximately 7,000 plants total) that were threatened by natural ( i.e., flood) events, anthropogenic ( e.g., herbicide treatment) events, or both. At that time, the species' small population size was considered a threat because a single natural or human-caused event had the potential to extirpate rough popcornflower patches.

Due to implementation of recovery actions, including survey efforts leading to the discovery of previously unknown populations, there are currently over 2,000,000 plants in 18 populations (see table 1, above). Twelve of the 18 populations have over 5,000 plants. At the time of listing, 84% of rough popcornflower individuals were on unprotected land, but new information gathered through these survey efforts indicates populations at protected sites have increased such that a much smaller proportion of individuals (47%) occur on unprotected land. Although small populations that remain vulnerable to extirpation occur, individual populations are broadly distributed and the likelihood of a large-scale event affecting them collectively is unlikely. During years with below average precipitation, drought, or fires, seed set could fall short of what is needed to maintain population stability. However, with a large number of seed produced by plants, it is likely that any periodic depletion of seed bank will be short-term and the seed bank will be replenished (USFWS 2021, p. 7). One population thought to be extirpated for several years was documented flowering after 3 years of species absence (Amsberry and Meinke 2008, p. 14).

At the time of listing, data also indicated that small, isolated populations may not be able to sustain adequate genetic variation, and that a lack of connectivity between isolated patches and populations would limit pollinator-mediated gene flow. Our current analysis of connectivity for the 18 rough popcornflower populations ranked 11 populations as having high connectivity (within 950 meters (m) (3,117 ft) or less) and 3 populations as having medium connectivity (between 950 and 1,500 m (3,117 and 4,921 ft)) (USFWS 2021, p. 35), indicating that rough popcornflower populations are less isolated than at the time of listing. Overall, while the connectivity of small populations is still of some concern, the species is much less vulnerable to the effects of small population size and genetic isolation than when it was listed in 2000.

Herbivory by rodents and livestock has been documented and was identified as a threat to rough popcornflower (65 FR 3866 at 3871; January 25, 2000). Although high densities of white-tailed ( Odocoileus virginianus ) and black-tailed deer ( Odocoileus hemionus hemionus ) overlap with the distribution of rough popcornflower, the best available information does not indicate that deer herbivory is adversely impacting rough popcornflower populations (USFWS 2021, p. 23).

Grazing by livestock may or may not be consistent with rough popcornflower conservation. Grazing of rough popcornflower during its growing period can be detrimental to the species. However, grazing can help control nonnative plant competitors and provide a measure of disturbance that maintains the preferable early seral and open habitat conditions for rough popcornflower. Four rough popcornflower populations with more than 5,000 plants each are partially or entirely on privately-owned grazing lands; the largest single population (more than 1,000,000 plants) is on a private horse ranch where grazing is managed in a manner compatible with the long-term survival of rough popcornflower (USFWS 2021, p. 16). Depending on how grazing is managed, it can adversely impact or benefit individual populations of rough popcornflower. With 11 of the 18 populations considered protected or on adequately managed land, livestock herbivory is not currently considered a threat to the species overall. However, because formal commitments for long-term management of livestock grazing for the benefit of rough popcornflower have not been secured for some populations (including the largest population of over 1,000,000 plants), these populations remain potentially exposed to this threat and its impacts.

Nonnative invasive plants, including pennyroyal ( Mentha pulegium ), teasel ( Dipsacus spp.), creeping thistle ( Cirsium arvense ), and reed canary grass ( Phalaris arundinacea ) are a primary threat to the establishment and maintenance of rough popcornflower due to their encroachment of habitat and elimination of bare ground, which popcornflower seeds require to germinate. Pennyroyal is present at many rough popcornflower sites, and teasel and creeping thistle control require constant conservation efforts at the North Bank Habitat Management Area, Yoncalla South, and TNC/ODOT Popcornswale Preserve populations.

Rough popcornflower is conservation reliant, and when natural disturbance events are lacking, active management ( e.g., manual weeding, herbicide application, mowing, and strategic grazing) is necessary to control competing vegetation and maintain early seral habitats, which can help rough popcornflower populations persist into the future (USFWS 2010, p. 27). Nonnative invasive plants appear to be less of a concern on private lands due to livestock grazing (USFWS 2020, p. 2). Strategic grazing by livestock, in terms of seasonal grazing periods and intensity, when closely monitored, can benefit rough popcornflower populations by reducing plant competition and creating open ground that facilitates seed germination and enables population expansion (USFWS 2021, p. 24).

While competition with nonnative invasive plants remains an ongoing threat to rough popcornflower, this threat can be successfully managed through continued investments in the adaptive management practices that have resulted in flourishing populations across the species' range (USFWS 2021, appendices 3 and 4).

At the time of listing, fire was considered a natural event key to the formation and maintenance of rough popcornflower habitat (65 FR 3866 at 3867; January 25, 2000). In late September 2003, an accidental fire burned across the Soggy Bottoms rough popcornflower population at moderate intensity. The year following the burn, staff noted that individual rough popcornflower plants were much larger and robust, and the population had increased. The population dropped significantly during the following 5 years, although that was considered likely due to changed site hydrology. While the effects of fire in rough popcornflower habitat restoration are still unknown (USFWS 2010, p. 27), data collected after the 2003 fire suggest that low- to moderate-intensity fire can have at least short-term beneficial effects to the species.

The likely impacts of climate change on rough popcornflower's ecological processes are closely connected to the availability of water. Due to their shallow and ephemeral nature, wet swales in southwestern Oregon are particularly sensitive to increases in evaporation or reductions in rainfall. Strong climate variability is likely to persist in the Pacific Northwest, owing in part to the annual and decadal climate variability associated with the Pacific Ocean (May et al. 2018, p. 1,039). Models project periods of prolonged drought interspersed with years featuring heavy rainfall driven by powerful atmospheric rivers and strong El Niño winters (May et al. 2018, p. 1,039). Even modest temperature increases could result in more water runoff in winter and less in spring and summer, more winter flooding, and drier summer soils, thereby altering the seasonality and duration of wetland hydration (Fleishman 2025, pp. 63-64, 75). Reduced soil moisture due to evaporation and transpiration may exacerbate drought effects (Fleishman 2025, pp. 74-75). Drought-mediated decreases in water depth and inundation periods could increase the frequency at which wetlands dry before rough popcornflower has completed its flowering and fruiting stages. However, Southern Oregon, along with other areas in the western United States, has been experiencing a prolonged drought for several years (Fleishman 2023, p. 52) and rough popcornflower continued to demonstrate stable or increasing population trends. Climate change could also cause temperatures to exceed those suitable for growth of the species (USFWS 2010, p. 28).

The impact of climate change on rough popcornflower will likely vary depending on site-specific conditions and annual precipitation variation. Rough popcornflower individuals are naturally adaptive to fall and winter inundation and depend on soil moisture until their seed has matured. An earlier warming trend may result in a limited seed set because the soil will dry out quicker and may benefit nonnative plants. Habitat management using herbicides and prescribed burning would likely increase with an increase in nonnative plants. However, if climate change in Oregon results in wetter winters and springs as predicted (Fleishman 2023, pp. 11-12), then the additional precipitation may lengthen seed set and favor rough popcornflower survival over competitors unable to adapt to saturated soils.

Rough popcornflower is a conservation-reliant species, meaning that the species will require continued conservation efforts to remain viable (USFWS 2010, p. 30). Since listing the species in 2000, we have coordinated with local, State, and Federal stakeholders on conservation actions for the species, some of which we supported with funding.

Mowing in rough popcornflower habitat to control competing nonnative invasive plant species, and subsequent outplanting of rough popcornflower, has occurred regularly at several sites. Other conservation actions include fencing to protect populations from anthropogenic disturbance; population reintroductions and augmentations; and stakeholder workshops in which species' needs, recovery targets, and habitat conservation were discussed to raise landowner awareness. Agencies and property owners who have made commitments to protect or manage rough popcornflower and its habitat are the City of Sutherlin, Oregon; Douglas Soil and Water Conservation District, Oregon; ODA, Native Plant Conservation Program; the BLM; the Native Plant Society of Oregon, Umpqua Valley Chapter; and TNC.

In the 2007 City of Sutherlin Conservation Agreement and Conservation Plan (ODA 2007, entire), the signatories (the Service, the City of Sutherlin, ODA, the Umpqua Valley Chapter of the Native Plant Society of Oregon, the Sutherlin Stampede Association, and the Sutherlin Blackberry Festival, Inc.) agreed to the following measures:

• Prohibit activities that would disturb or destroy existing populations of rough popcornflower, or their habitat, on land owned or managed by the City of Sutherlin;

• Contract or coordinate appropriately timed surveys for new populations of rough popcornflower on city-owned or -managed land prior to initiating ground-disturbing projects;

• Contact the ODA Native Plant Conservation Program if a new population of rough popcornflower is found during a pre-project survey and cooperate with the ODA Native Plant Conservation Program to develop conservation-based alternatives to proposed projects that would impact rough popcornflower populations or their habitat; and

• Cooperate with the ODA Native Plant Conservation Program to implement a management plan promoting the conservation of the populations of rough popcornflower at the Red Rock Park (formerly Timber Days Grounds).

Since 2007, implementation of this Agreement has provided fencing to protect rough popcornflower populations, reduced competitive and nonnative invasive species, and increased population numbers. This agreement was updated in 2023. In the updated agreement, entitled “Conservation Agreement for Rough Popcornflower,” the City of Sutherlin agreed to continue to protect the plant and to extend the protection to Ford's Pond, a property acquired after the original signing in 2007. The 2023 agreement also allows reintroduction of the species at Ford's Pond (USFWS 2023c, p. 8).

The biological opinion on the North Bank Habitat Management Area issued by the Service in 2001 evaluated the effects of proposed management actions and conservation measures conducted by the BLM for three rough popcornflower populations occurring in the management area (USFWS 2001, p. 15). Proposed management actions included manual and mechanical removal of competitive vegetation and the use of integrated pest management techniques to control noxious weeds. Proposed conservation measures included retaining existing populations and introducing additional populations into suitable habitat. To date, the BLM has consistently implemented these management actions and conservation measures, and the BLM is expected to continue to maintain and enhance habitat for this species into the future.

The ODOT has established the Special Management Areas program to protect State-listed and federally listed endangered and threatened plant species identified on ODOT rights-of-way (ODOT 2017, p. 4). Special Management Areas are marked with signs that instruct ODOT maintenance crews on allowable activities. ODOT entered a statewide habitat conservation plan (HCP) with the Service in 2017 (USFWS 2017, entire). Under the HCP, the Special Management Areas identify the known populations of rare plants along ODOT rights-of-way that they have agreed to avoid impacting. In most cases, only periodic maintenance is necessary in Special Management Areas, and site-specific restrictions have been developed to protect listed species.

All federally listed plants in Oregon are also protected by State law under the Oregon Endangered Species Act (ORS 564.010-.994), and their protection and conservation are administered by the ODA. The Oregon Endangered Species Act protects many other plant species in addition to those protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act. All State and municipal agencies, including City of Sutherlin, Douglas County, Douglas Soil and Water Conservation Service, and ODOT must consult with ODA when a proposed action on land owned or leased by the State, or for which the State holds a recorded easement, has the potential to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival or recovery of any listed plant species.

While we do not have a specific agreement in place with TNC that guarantees a commitment to future management, they have actively managed the rough popcornflower habitat at their property (the TNC/ODOT Popcornswale Preserve) since 1995 by monitoring populations, controlling nonnative invasive species, and managing habitat by reducing tree cover, mowing, and augmenting the population with seeding. TNC has continued to manage the TNC/ODOT Popcornswale Preserve multiple times a year since 1995 and is expected to continue these efforts.

These and other conservation efforts by us and our partners, including surveys, have helped increase the number of protected sites and improve the number of plants in the overall population. Currently, 11 of the 18 known populations throughout the species' range are under Federal, State, municipal, or land trust protections offering indefinite protection from habitat conversion to other uses. The remaining 7 populations (approximately 47 percent of the total number of individuals) do not have formal commitments for the long-term beneficial management of rough popcornflower but are benefitting from voluntary management practices employed by land management agencies and private landowners.

We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.

Resiliency, the ability of populations to withstand stochastic events, is commonly determined as a function of metrics such as population size, growth rate, or habitat quality and quantity. We evaluated the current resiliency of rough popcornflower populations based on the population size, habitat quantity, connectivity, habitat quality, management frequency, reproductive success, and the degree of protection afforded to each population (see tables 2 through 8, below). Populations with over 5,000 mature plants were determined to be in high condition based on the downlisting criteria outlined in the species' recovery plan. Populations of over 1,000 plants were considered to be in medium condition, and those with under 200 plants were considered to be in low condition. We then assigned numerical values to each of the condition category rankings and added them together to arrive at an overall resiliency score of each rough popcornflower population, which we then parsed into high, moderate, and low categories (see table 9, below). A complete description of our analytical approach to current condition is available in the SSA report (USFWS 2021, pp. 34-37).

As shown above in table 9, at the time of the SSA report in 2021, 11 (61 percent) of the 18 rough popcornflower populations scored high for resiliency, 3 (17 percent) scored moderate, and 4 (22 percent) scored low. Changes in condition category rankings as a result of surveys conducted from 2021-2024 (USFWS 2022, entire; USFWS 2023a, entire; USFWS 2025, entire) resulted in overall resiliency rankings of 12 (67 percent) high, 1 (5 percent) moderate, and 5 (28 percent) low. Some changes in condition category rankings from 2021 to 2024 reflect variability in survey timing and optimal blooming for the rough popcornflower populations, which may be asynchronous. For example, some populations may reach optimal blooming in late May one year and mid-June in others, and surveys may not capture all populations at their peak. Additionally, one population (Red Rock) underwent some mowing and clearing that impacted the growing area at that site. Nevertheless, the overall condition results demonstrate relatively high resiliency across the range of the rough popcornflower.

Redundancy is a species' ability to withstand catastrophic events and is a function of the number and resilience of populations, as well as their distribution and connectivity. At the time of listing, there were eight known rough popcornflower populations. Currently, there are 18 known populations. Some of this increase is due to newly discovered populations; however, since the time of listing, habitat restoration, reintroductions, and habitat protection have collectively improved the status of the species. Of the 18 known populations, 12 populations score high for overall resiliency and are distributed across the range of the species, with 6 in the Sutherlin Creek recovery unit, 2 in the Yoncalla Creek recovery unit, 1 in the Calapooya recovery unit, and 3 in the Umpqua Management Area. The six populations with moderate or low resiliency contribute to the species' redundancy to a lesser degree and are distributed across the Calapooya Creek and Sutherlin Creek recovery units. The distribution of 12 populations with high resiliency across all 3 recovery units and the management area demonstrates the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events.

Representation refers to the ability of a species to adapt to change, and is assessed using geographic, genetic, ecological, and niche diversity data. Ecological diversity and genetic variation based on habitat differences, differences in annual and biennial life histories, and differences in growth forms may be inferred from the rough popcornflower's distribution across different sub-watersheds. Multiple populations with high resiliency throughout the species' range, along with populations of lesser resiliency, facilitate the preservation of the genetic diversity present within each recovery unit. Although populations with fewer than 5,000 plants may have lower genetic variation, rough popcornflower's wide variety of possible pollinators (Amsberry and Meinke 2001, pp. 12-13) assists in gene transfer and could boost the genetic variation of these populations.

Natural and reintroduced rough popcornflower populations are currently distributed in multiple subwatersheds across the species' historical range, and plants demonstrate diversity within and between populations, including different growth forms and flowering times. Additionally, rough popcornflower seeds do not all germinate every year, and a portion of the seed bank likely remains in the ground. The presence of a long-term seed bank allows rough popcornflower to persist through periods of adverse environmental conditions. In combination, these factors indicate that the species has the capacity to adapt to a variety of environmental conditions.

To assess the future viability of rough popcornflower, we considered the factors that will influence the species within the foreseeable future. We define the foreseeable future as 30 years, as we consider this a reasonable timeframe to make reliable predictions about the threats to this species and its response to those threats due to this plant's reproductive strategy as an annual or short-lived perennial. Our viability assessment is characterized in terms of the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species as projected under various future conditions that capture the range of plausible outcomes (Shaffer and Stein 2000 pp. 306-310; Wolf et al. 2015, entire; Smith et al. 2018, pp. 304, 306-307). We projected the viability of rough popcornflower from 2020 to 2050 under three plausible future scenarios based on potential trends with conservation partners, climate patterns, and population demographics. Scenario A represented improvements over current conditions. Scenario B represented the most likely conditions if current trends continue. Scenario C represented conditions that are worse than current conditions.

Scenario A, the upper plausible limit, assumes continued conservation support for the rough popcornflower including from private landowners throughout the species' range, as well as additional funding for outplanting and nonnative invasive vegetation control. Scenario B is the most likely scenario for the rough popcornflower based on current Federal and State agency commitments, outplanting successes, the current ability to place conservation agreements, and species' population demographic trends. We discuss scenario B further below. Scenario C assumes diminished habitat conditions and a decreased level of management actions ( e.g., mowing, manual or chemical control of nonnative invasive herbaceous plants, prescribed burning) from current levels, falling short of what is needed and resulting in the reduction of the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation over the next 30 years. For further details on all three scenarios, see the SSA report (USFWS 2021, pp. 41-47).

We determined that rough popcornflower is expected to continue to be influenced by the factors that have historically influenced and are currently influencing the species, at rates most closely associated with scenario B. Therefore, scenario B represents the most likely conditions if current trends continue (USFWS 2021, pp. 44-45). In scenario B, we made several assumptions about ongoing conservation support within the foreseeable future. Several conservation partners (government agencies, nonprofit conservation organizations, academic institutions, and private landowners) have made significant contributions to recovery efforts for rough popcornflower. We assume that these partners will continue to collaborate and contribute conservation resources to rough popcornflower and its habitat based on current regulations and agency commitments, outplanting successes, and our ability to obtain conservation agreements. Continued outreach efforts are likely to support awareness of the species among private landowners and the public and to generate support for conservation. We also assume that development projects will continue to be evaluated by the Service, the Oregon Department of State Lands, and the ODA, and be modified to minimize or mitigate impacts to rough popcornflower and its habitats.

Under a continually increasing greenhouse gas emission scenario, Oregon's annual average temperature is projected to increase by 2.8 degrees Celsius (°C)) (5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) by 2074 (Fleishman 2025, p. 7). In this emission scenario, the amount of annual precipitation is projected to be highly uncertain. Summers are expected to warm more than the annual average and are likely to become drier. Extreme heat and precipitation events are expected to become more frequent (Dalton et al. 2017, p. 8). The effects of climate change on rough popcornflower populations are expected to be relatively moderate. Most rough popcornflower plants are expected to adjust to warmer temperatures by dispersal of seeds to moister habitats (via ungulates, other mammals, or birds), flowering earlier, and shortening their flowering period (USFWS 2021, p. 42). Climate change may limit rough popcornflower's growing season and habitat as well as moisture availability, though the species would likely continue to maintain viability within the three recovery units and the introduced populations at the Umpqua Management Area (USFWS 2021, p. 45). Given differences in microsites and management across populations, we expect some populations may fare better than others under future conditions.

For species resiliency in Scenario B, we expect there will be a total of 20 rough popcornflower populations, increasing from the current total of 18 populations due to recovery efforts such as reintroductions. At least 10 of those populations are anticipated to be in protected areas (reserves), contain populations that meet or exceed 5,000 plants, and exhibit stable or increasing population counts in 7 out of 10 years (see table 10, below). In terms of redundancy, protected rough popcornflower populations are expected to continue to be distributed in all three recovery units. With a total of 20 populations widely distributed across the species' range, we do not anticipate a catastrophic event, such as extreme flooding, would impact all populations of rough popcornflower simultaneously. Thus, we find that the rough popcornflower will likely be able to withstand catastrophic events.

For species representation, rough popcornflower populations are expected to be well distributed across all three recovery units and the Umpqua Management Area. We expect genetic diversity will likely be maintained in the foreseeable future, as future projections show at least 10 populations will likely exceed the effective population size necessary to sustain genetic diversity over time. An increase in connectivity due to larger populations will also reduce the likelihood of population isolation.

Collectively, our analysis of the resiliency, redundancy, and representation under this scenario indicates that the viability of the rough popcornflower is not likely to be significantly reduced over the next 30 years. However, some populations remain genetically isolated, and competition with nonnative invasive plants remains an ongoing threat to the species. Rough popcornflower also has the potential to be negatively impacted by climate change in the foreseeable future, primarily due to increased variability of precipitation leading to periods of prolonged drought interspersed with years of heavy rainfall.

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of any 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.

After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we found that the primary threats to rough popcornflower, since the time of listing, have been the destruction and/or alteration of habitat by development and hydrological changes ( e.g., wetland fills, draining, construction), competition from nonnative invasive plant species, impacts due to climate change ( e.g., winter flooding, drier summer soils, and decreased fruit production), and lack of regulatory mechanisms. The best available information does not indicate that overcollection (Factor B) or herbivory (Factor C) are threats to the viability of the rough popcornflower. Our current analysis also indicates that the habitat threats (Factor A) and threats from the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) have decreased since the time of listing, while climate change and competitive exclusion from nonnative invasive plants (Factor E) will likely require ongoing monitoring and management.

Habitat-related threats (destruction, alteration, or both of habitat and competition from nonnative invasive plant species), identified as drivers of the rough popcornflower's status, are still present on the landscape; however, their magnitude and scope have decreased from historical levels and have been offset by a variety of management and conservation measures by many conservation partners since the rough popcornflower was listed as an endangered species (see 65 FR 3866; January 25, 2000), and these conservation actions continue today (USFWS 2021, p. 25 and appendix 3). While there is still fluctuation in nonnative invasive plant species growth depending on factors such as changes to maintenance routines that include targeted herbicide application, mowing and clearing, improvements in habitat management practices and extensive habitat restoration have been implemented, which have improved population resiliency and redundancy at several sites. Increased public awareness of the species has resulted in increased stewardship across lands with rough popcornflower populations and improved regulatory compliance. Greater understanding and compliance along with improvements in habitat management practices and extensive habitat restoration have helped ameliorate threats to the species, resulting in population increases and greater distribution. A majority of the rough popcornflower population sites (11 of 18) are protected by public ownership or managed to benefit the species; with these site protections and increased public knowledge of the species, compliance with regulatory mechanisms has increased significantly.

At the time of listing, rough popcornflower was known to exist in only 8 populations totaling 7,000 plants. There are currently 18 known populations totaling more than 2,000,000 plants. Although almost half (1,000,000) of the plants are within a single population, there are 17 other populations comprising more than 1,000,000 rough popcornflower plants distributed across the range of the species; 11 of these populations are considered protected or managed. Although the plants and populations are not distributed precisely as identified in downlisting criteria (USFWS 2019, pp. 4-6), the population size (both the number of plants and the physical area covered) in two of the three recovery units and the additional recovery management area exceed the target population size by unit/area. Our viability analysis determined that the species currently has high resiliency, good redundancy, and sufficient representation (USFWS 2021, pp. 32-41). Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the rough popcornflower is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.

We therefore proceed with determining whether the rough popcornflower is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

The best available information indicates that, at the species level, the most influential factors affecting rough popcornflower into the future are habitat-related threats (destruction, alteration, or both of habitat and competition from nonnative invasive plant species) (Factor A) and climate change (Factor E), which will likely cause more winter flooding, drier summer soils, and decreased fruit production. In our analysis of future viability (USFWS 2021, pp. 41-47), under the moderate (Scenario B) and better than expected (Scenario A) scenarios, we predict the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation to be stable or increasing within the next 30 years. While a continuation of current conservation efforts as modeled under our moderate scenario is most likely, 7 of the 18 known populations (approximately 47 percent of the total number of plants) do not have formal commitments for long-term beneficial management of rough popcornflower and continued beneficial management is not assured.

Additionally, under our worse than expected scenario, we predict the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation to diminish within the next 30 years. Although this scenario is considered the least likely to occur, diminished habitat conditions along with reduced management actions and agency commitments are plausible and would likely lead to long-term demographic declines, reductions in the number of populations, and reduced genetic diversity.

Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the rough popcornflower is not in danger of extinction, but is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) ( Everson ), vacated the provision of the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (hereafter Final Policy; 79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided that if the Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (together, the Services) determine that a species is threatened throughout all of its range, the Services will not analyze whether the species is endangered throughout a significant portion of its range.

Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is endangered throughout a significant portion of its range—that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is “significant”; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.

Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether the species is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range. In undertaking this analysis for rough popcornflower, we choose to address the status question first—we consider information pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that the species faces to identify portions of the range where the species may be endangered.

We evaluated the range of the rough popcornflower to determine if the species is in danger of extinction throughout any portion of its range. The range of a species can theoretically be divided in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' range that may meet the Act's definition of an endangered species. For rough popcornflower, we considered whether the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions such that the species is in danger of extinction in that portion. We divided the range of the rough popcornflower in several ways ( e.g., populations, recovery units) for the purposes of our viability analyses in the SSA report (Service 2021, entire). For the purpose of evaluating significant portion of the range, we divided the range into three recovery units (Sutherlin Creek, Yoncalla Creek, and Calapooya Creek) that correspond to drainage basins within the Lower North Umpqua system and represent groups of populations which share phenotypic similarities and are potentially genetically similar to one another. This scale is appropriate for considering whether the species may be in danger of extinction in any portion of the range.

We examined the following threats: habitat loss and fragmentation, small population size, nonnative invasive plant encroachment, fire, and climate change, including cumulative effects. We considered the effects of these threats on the rough popcornflower within each of the three recovery units.

As discussed above, thanks in part to recovery efforts from multiple stakeholders, the rough popcornflower has increased to over 2,000,000 plants in 18 populations. In two of the three recovery units there are at least two populations that meet or exceed the resiliency criterion size of 5,000 individuals surpassing a patch size of 500 m 2 (5,382 ft 2 ), indicating they have a high probability of persistence over the next 30 years. The remaining recovery unit has a population well over 5,000 individuals that does not yet meet the area requirement but is also expected to persist.

The rough popcornflower has a current distribution that is analogous to its historical range in all three recovery units (USFWS 2021, p. 39). Near-term threats are similar for all populations distributed throughout the recovery units. The rough popcornflower is a conservation reliant species, and in each recovery unit populations receive some form of habitat management in the form of mowing, grazing, prescribed burning, or nonnative invasive plant control to address the near-term threats (USFWS 2021, p. 38).

Given the distribution of resilient populations across recovery units, the uniformity of the near-term threats to the species within each unit and ongoing conservation measures addressing those threats, there is no one recovery unit that has a different status from its range-wide status. In summary, we found no portion of the rough popcornflower range where threats are impacting individuals differently from how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its range, or where the biological condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species in that portion does not differ from any other portion of the species' range.

Therefore, no portion of the species' range provides a basis for determining that the species is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, and we determine that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy, including the definition of “significant” that those court decisions held were invalid.

Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the rough popcornflower no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered species but does meet the Act's definition of a threatened species, because it is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Therefore, we are reclassifying the rough popcornflower from an endangered species to a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Once we have downlisted the rough popcornflower, conservation measures continue to be provided to species listed as threatened species under the Act including recognition as a listed species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. As discussed above, we developed a strategy in our rough popcornflower recovery plan (USFWS 2003b and 2019a) to downlist the species by conserving populations throughout its range by augmenting existing populations, seeding, and through the use of formal habitat restoration agreements. In addition, section 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) responsibilities of Federal agencies remain.

Section 7 of the Act is titled, “Interagency Cooperation,” and it mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its determination of whether the federal action is likely to result in jeopardy or adverse modification.

Examples of discretionary actions for the rough popcornflower that may be subject to consultation procedures under section 7 are management of Federal lands administered by the BLM, as well as actions that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. )) or actions funded by Federal agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat—and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency—do not require section 7 consultation. Federal agencies should coordinate with the local Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) with any specific questions on Section 7 consultation and conference requirements.

Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for the rough popcornflower. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery implementation purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Section 9 of the Act provides a specific list of prohibitions for endangered species but does not provide these same prohibitions for threatened species. Instead, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, for any species listed as a threatened species, the Secretary must issue protective regulations that are “necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species” (these are referred to as “4(d) rules). Additional measures for the rough popcornflower are described below (see Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the Act, below).

We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened plants under certain circumstances. Service regulations governing permits for threatened plants are codified at 50 CFR 17.72, and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 13. With regard to threatened plants, a permit may be issued for scientific purposes or for enhancing the propagation or survival of the species. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.

It is the policy of the Services, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the extent known at the time a species is listed, specific activities that will not be considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act. To the extent possible, activities that will be considered likely to result in violation will also be identified in as specific a manner as possible. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the species. Although most of the prohibitions in section 9 of the Act apply to endangered species, sections 9(a)(1)(G) and 9(a)(2)(E) of the Act prohibit the violation of any regulation under section 4(d) pertaining to any threatened species of fish or wildlife, or threatened species of plant, respectively. Section 4(d) of the Act directs the Secretary to promulgate protective regulations that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of threatened species. As a result, when we list a species as a threatened species, to the extent possible, we identify activities that will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of the protective regulations under section 4(d) for that species.

At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act beyond what is already clear from the descriptions of prohibitions and exceptions established by protective regulation under section 4(d) of the Act.

Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

As discussed in Available Conservation Measures, section 9 of the Act provides a specific list of prohibitions for endangered species but does not provide these same prohibitions for threatened species. Instead, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, for any species listed as a threatened species, the Secretary must issue protective regulations that are “necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species” (these are referred to as “4(d) rules”). Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as they deem necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species listed as threatened species. Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally, the second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. With these two sentences in section 4(d), Congress delegated broad authority to the Secretary to determine what protections would be necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species, and even broader authority to put in place any of the section 9 prohibitions, for a given species.

Courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion under section 4(d) to develop regulations that are appropriate for the conservation of threatened species. For example, courts have upheld, as a valid exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when the Act was initially enacted, “once an animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available to [them] with regard to the permitted activities for those species. [They] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species, or [they] may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the transportation of such species” (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).

Under our section 4(d) authorities, we put in place protections intended to both prevent a threatened species from becoming an endangered species and to promote its recovery. Section 4(d) rules explain what is prohibited for a threatened species, thus making the activity unlawful without a permit or authorization under the Act for the prohibited activity unless otherwise excepted in the 4(d) rule and may also include affirmative requirements. Section 4(d) rules are therefore directly related to what actions may require permits in the future. As discussed in Available Conservation Measures, permits may be issued for purposes described in our threatened plant species permitting regulations at 50 CFR 17.72, including for recovery actions, conservation benefit agreements (previously referred to as candidate conservation agreements with assurances and safe harbor agreements), or habitat conservation plans. We may also except otherwise prohibited activities through a 4(d) rule itself, in which case threatened species permits would not be required for those activities. For example, there are two categories of exceptions that we frequently include in 4(d) rules, and these are for otherwise prohibited acts or forms or amounts of “take” that are: (1) unavoidable while conducting beneficial actions for the species, or (2) considered inconsequential (de minimis) to the conservation of the species. For otherwise prohibited take activities that require section 10 permits, programmatic approaches—such as general conservation plans and template habitat conservation plans—may be available as another way for project proponents to comply with take prohibitions or requirements applicable to one or more species while reducing the time that would otherwise be associated with developing individual permit applications. In addition, the Service and project proponents can reduce the need for such permits by developing standardized conservation measures that avoid the risk of “take.”

The provisions of this species' protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act are one of many tools that we will use to promote the conservation of the rough popcornflower. Nothing in 4(d) rules changes in any way the recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act or the consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act. As mentioned previously in Available Conservation Measures, Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. These requirements are the same for a threatened species regardless of what is included in a 4(d) rule.

Section 4(d) rules do not alter section 7 obligations, including the criteria for informal or formal consultations or the analytical process used for biological opinions or concurrence letters. Section 7 consultation is required for Federal actions that “may affect” a listed species regardless of whether take caused by the activity is prohibited or excepted by a 4(d) rule. For example, as with an endangered species, if a Federal agency determines that an action is “not likely to adversely affect” a threatened species, this will require the Service's written concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)). Similarly, if a Federal agency determines that an action is “likely to adversely affect” a threatened species, the action will require formal consultation with the Service and the formulation of a biological opinion (50 CFR 402.14(a)). Because consultation obligations and processes are unaffected by 4(d) rules, we may consider developing tools to streamline future intra-Service and inter-Agency consultations for actions that result in forms of take that are not prohibited by the 4(d) rule (but that still require consultation). These tools may include consultation guidance, online consultation processes via the Service's digital project planning tool (Information for Planning and Consultation; https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ ), template language for biological opinions, or programmatic consultations.

Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, we have developed a rule that is designed to address the rough popcornflower's conservation needs. As discussed previously in Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that rough popcornflower is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future primarily due to habitat loss and fragmentation, nonnative invasive plant encroachment, and impacts due to climate change ( e.g., winter flooding, drier summer soils, and decreased fruit production). Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such regulations as they deem necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of each threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to include among those protective regulations any of the prohibitions that section 9(a)(2) of the Act prescribes for endangered species ( In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 228 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 (1995))). Our necessary and advisable determination includes consideration of conservation and economic impacts ( Kansas Natural Resources Coalition, et al. v. USFWS, et al. No. 23-CV-00159-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex. 2025). We explain below why we find that the prohibitions and exceptions in this final rule as a whole satisfy the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of rough popcornflower.

The protective regulations for rough popcornflower incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(2) to address the threats to the species. We include the following prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, and implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.61, which make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered plant: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) remove and reduce to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy on any such area; or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law; (3) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity; or (4) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. These protective regulations include these prohibitions for the rough popcornflower because the rough popcornflower is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future and putting these prohibitions in place will help to prevent declines and preserve the species' remaining populations.

As discussed above in Summary of Biological Status and Threats, habitat loss and fragmentation, nonnative invasive plant encroachment, and impacts due to climate change ( e.g., winter flooding, drier summer soils, and decreased fruit production), are affecting the status of the rough popcornflower. Almost 63,000 rough popcornflower plants are known to occur on lands owned and managed by the BLM. Regulating activities on lands under Federal jurisdiction ( e.g., lands managed by BLM) and on any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law through our application of 50 CFR 17.61(c)(1) would help reduce the severity of the threat of habitat loss and fragmentation. As discussed above, all federally listed plants in Oregon are also protected by State law under the Oregon Endangered Species Act (ORS 564.010-.994), and their protection and conservation are administered by the ODA. All State and municipal agencies, including City of Sutherlin, Douglas County, Douglas Soil and Water Conservation District, and ODOT must consult with ODA when a proposed action on land owned or leased by the State, or for which the State holds a recorded easement, has the potential to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival or recovery of any listed plant species. The 4(d) rule makes any known violation of these laws when removing, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying the species a violation of the Act.

In addition, we are regulating import, export, and intrastate or foreign commerce of rough popcornflower (50 CFR 17.61 (b), (d), and (e)). While collection and associated commerce of the species is not known to pose a threat to the species, regulating these activities will reduce the potential for this becoming a threat in the future. Collection of the species for ornamental purposes could exacerbate the ongoing threat to the species due to its limited range and small population size. These activities are currently regulated for rough popcornflower, and permits are currently available for these otherwise prohibited activities according to section 10 of the Act and regulations for endangered plants at 50 CFR 17.62. Should anyone wish to engage in these activities going forward, the permitting requirements at 50 CFR 17.72 are less than those currently required and we therefore anticipate reduced regulatory costs associated with these prohibitions.

The 4(d) rule will also provide for the conservation of the species by allowing exceptions that are intended to incentivize conservation actions or actions that are not expected to rise to the level that would have a negative impact ( i.e., would have only de minimis impacts) on the species' conservation.

Exceptions to the prohibitions include those set forth in 50 CFR 17.71(b). To further the conservation of the species, any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management agency, federally recognized Tribe, or a State conservation agency, who is designated by their agency or Tribe for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of official duties, remove and reduce to possession threatened plants from areas under Federal jurisdiction without a permit if such action is necessary to: (i) Care for a damaged or diseased specimen; (ii) dispose of a dead specimen; or (iii) salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific study. Any removal and reduction to possession must be reported in writing to the Office of Law Enforcement, via contact methods listed at https://www.fws.gov, within 5 calendar days. The specimen may only be retained, disposed of, or salvaged under directions from the Office of Law Enforcement.

We recognize the special and unique relationship that we have with our State natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State agencies, because of their authorities and their close working relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we must cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement with us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by their agency for such purposes, will be able to conduct activities designed to conserve rough popcornflower that may result in otherwise prohibited activities without additional authorization.

In addition, any employee or agent of the Service, who is designated by their agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of official duties, remove and reduce to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction rough popcornflower plants.

We recognize the beneficial and educational aspects of activities with seeds of cultivated plants, which generally enhance the propagation of the species and, therefore, would satisfy permit requirements under the Act. We intend to monitor the interstate and foreign commerce and import and export of these specimens in a manner that will not inhibit such activities, providing the activities do not represent a threat to the survival of the species in the wild. In this regard, seeds of cultivated specimens would not be subject to the prohibitions above, provided that a statement that the seeds are of “cultivated origin” accompanies the seeds or their container ( e.g., the seeds could be moved across State lines for purposes of seed banking or use for outplanting without additional regulations).

Finally, we may under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more otherwise-prohibited activities, including those described above. The regulations that govern permits for threatened plants state that the Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise prohibited with regard to threatened species. A permit may be issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for botanical or horticultural exhibition, for educational purposes, or for other purposes consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act (50 CFR 17.72). As mentioned above, the permitting requirements for threatened species are less than those for endangered species. Additional statutory exemptions from the prohibitions are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.

The 4(d) rule provides for the conservation of rough popcornflower because it will regulate activities that pose a threat to the species or that may become a threat in the future. This 4(d) rule provides increased flexibilities in management for rough popcornflower through additional exceptions at 50 CFR 17.71(b) instead of current exceptions at 50 CFR 17.61(c)(2-4). The 4(d) rule also provides for reduced permitting requirements for otherwise prohibited activities through permitting regulations at 50 CFR 17.72 instead of requirements under section 10(c) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 17.62 (current permitting as an endangered species). Please see our November 25, 2025 “Consideration of Economic Impacts for the Proposed 4(d) Rule for the Rough Popcornflower” on https://www.regulations.gov for our consideration of economic impacts. The 4(d) rule's increased flexibilities and reduced permitting requirements result in an overall reduction in any potential economic impacts due to these reduced regulatory requirements. Where there is a Federal nexus, the 4(d) rule does not change any obligations under section 7 of the Act. Therefore, after considering the conservation needs of the species and the economic impacts of the 4(d) rule, we have determined that the 4(d) rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; title II of Public Law 104-121, March 29, 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While we do not conduct RFA analyses on our classification determinations under the Act, in accordance with recent caselaw ( Kansas Natural Resources Coalition, et al. v. USFWS, et al. No. 23-CV-00159-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex. 2025)) we comply with RFA through consideration of conservation and economic impacts when promulgating 4(d) rules.

During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment period on the proposed rule (89 FR 99811; December 11, 2024) that may pertain to our consideration of the probable impacts of the 4(d) rule. As discussed above, there are no new regulatory requirements due to the 4(d) rule. Prior to the effective date of this final rule, the rough popcornflower was an endangered species and all section 9(a)(2) prohibitions applied with limited exceptions. This final 4(d) rule provides increased flexibilities in management and reduced permitting requirements for the rough popcornflower. Please see our November 25, 2025 “Consideration of Economic Impacts for the 4(d) Rule for the Rough Popcornflower” on https://www.regulations.gov for our consideration of economic impacts. We certify that this 4(d) rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical habitat designations and species-specific protective regulations promulgated concurrently with a decision to list or reclassify a species as threatened. The courts have upheld this position ( e.g., Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (critical habitat); Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service., 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) rule)).

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally-recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribes will be affected by this rule because there are no Tribal lands or interests within or adjacent to rough popcornflower habitat.

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes blueline tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS, approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

Regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(z)(2) specify the recreational ACL for blueline tilefish of 116,820 pounds or 52,989 kilograms, round weight, and the recreational AM. The recreational AM states that NMFS will project the length of the recreational fishing season for blueline tilefish based on catch rates from the previous fishing year and announce the end date of the recreational fishing season based on when NMFS projects the recreational ACL will be met. The fishing year for blueline tilefish is from January 1 through December 31, annually (50 CFR 622.7). However, the recreational sector for blueline tilefish is closed annually from January 1 through April 30, and from September 1 through December 31 (50 CFR 622.183(b)(7)). Data from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center informed NMFS' 2026 season length projection that recreational landings of blueline tilefish will not reach the recreational ACL during the 2026 fishing year. In 2026, there will not be an in-season closure based on the recreational AM being triggered during the open fishing season and the sector will remain open from May 1 through August 30. The recreational sector will then close as scheduled on September 1, 2026, in accordance with the annual closure period of September 1 through December 31 (50 CFR 622.183(b)(7)).

During the recreational closure, the bag and possession limits for blueline tilefish in or from South Atlantic Federal waters are zero. The next recreational fishing season for blueline tilefish begins on May 1, 2027.

The ocean salmon fisheries in the EEZ (3-200 nautical miles (nmi); 5.6-370.4 kilometers (km)) off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California are managed under the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subpart H, provide the mechanism for developing and promulgating preseason specifications and management measures and making inseason adjustments to the management measures within limits set by the FMP by notification in the Federal Register . Regulations at 50 CFR 660.408 govern the establishment of annual management measures, and regulations at 50 CFR 660.409 govern the implementation of inseason adjustments. This rule implements the management measures for the 2026 ocean salmon fishing season.

Ocean salmon fishery management measures are established via a collaborative process with the Council, States, Tribes, fishing industry participants, anglers, and the public. The Council announced its annual preseason management process for the 2026 ocean salmon fishing season in the Federal Register on December 30, 2025 (90 FR 61127). NMFS published an additional notice of opportunity to submit public comments on the 2026 ocean salmon fishery management measures in the Federal Register on February 17, 2026 (91 FR 7263). These notices announced the availability of key documents, the dates and locations of meetings and public hearings regarding determining the annual proposed and final modifications to ocean salmon fishery management measures, and instructions on how to comment on those measures. The agendas for the March and April Council meetings, which included the development of the salmon measures, were published in the Federal Register (91 FR 5926, February 10, 2026, and 91 FR 13591, March 20, 2026) and posted on the Council's website prior to the meetings.

In accordance with the FMP, the Council's Salmon Technical Team (STT) and economist prepared four reports, which were made available on the Council's website upon their completion. The first of the reports, “Review of 2025 Ocean Salmon Fisheries,” was prepared in February when the first increment of scientific information necessary for crafting management measures for the 2026 ocean salmon fishing season became available. The first report summarizes biological and socio-economic data from the 2025 ocean salmon fisheries and assesses the performance of the fisheries with respect to the 2025 management objectives for salmon stocks and stock complexes, as well as provides historical information for comparison. The second report, issued March 2026, “ Preseason Report I Stock Abundance Analysis and Environmental Assessment Part 1 for 2026 Ocean Salmon Fishery Regulations” (PRE I), provides the 2026 salmon stock abundance projections and analyzes how the salmon stocks defined in the FMP and Council management goals would be affected if the 2025 management measures (the no-action alternative under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)) were continued for the 2026 ocean salmon fishing season. The completion of PRE I is the initial step in developing and evaluating the full suite of preseason alternatives for the 2026 fishing season.

Following the completion of the first two reports, the Council met from March 3 to 9, 2026, to develop 2026 management alternatives for proposal to the public and consideration under NEPA. The Council proposed three alternatives for commercial and recreational fisheries management and three alternatives for treaty Indian fisheries management for analysis and public comment. Development of the alternatives considered the information in the first two Council reports as well as public comment received at that time and other available information. These alternatives consisted of various combinations of management measures designed to ensure that stocks of coho salmon and Chinook salmon meet conservation goals, to provide for ocean harvests of more abundant stocks, to provide reasonably sharing of harvest among ports and sectors, and to provide for the exercise of Indian treaty fishing rights. After the March Council meeting, the Council's STT and economist prepared a third report, “ Preseason Report II Proposed Alternatives and Environmental Assessment Part 2 for 2026 Ocean Salmon Fishery Regulations” (PRE II), which analyzes the effects of the proposed 2026 ocean salmon fishing season management alternatives. In addition, a meeting between the U.S. and Canadian salmon managers provided additional forecast and harvest information related to southern U.S. stocks, including those that are part of the fisheries managed under the FMP.

The Council sponsored public hearings in person to receive testimony on the proposed alternatives on March 23, 2026, for Washington and California, and on March 24, 2026, for Oregon. In addition, the States of Washington, Oregon, and California sponsored meetings in various forums that also collected public testimony. The public also provided testimony at the March and April Council meetings and electronic submissions via the Council's electronic portal and https://www.regulations.gov .

Members of several federally recognized Tribes, including Tribes with treaty-reserved fishing rights, testified at the March and April Council meetings. Additional tribal comments were submitted in writing. The Columbia River Treaty Tribes and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation expressed urgent concern that contemporary salmon runs have dwindled to small fractions of historic levels, failing to meet the spiritual, cultural, and subsistence needs of their people. While the tribes have invested heavily in habitat restoration, hatchery programs, and fish passage projects, they argue that they cannot bear the conservation burden alone and urged the Council to set conservative ocean fishery limits to ensure adequate upriver escapement. Beyond harvest allocations, the tribes identified systemic threats to salmon survival, including lethal river temperatures, high sedimentation, and intense predation by birds and non-native species. Furthermore, they highlighted emerging stressors such as climate change and the rapid growth of water-intensive data centers, which disrupt the electrical grid and further degrade critical aquatic environments.

The Council adopted its recommendations for submission to NMFS for the 2026 ocean salmon management measures at its April meeting. The Council's STT and economist then prepared a fourth report, “ Preseason Report III Analysis of Council-Adopted Management Measures for 2026 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” (PRE III), which analyzes the environmental and socioeconomic effects of the Council's final recommendations (the Council's preferred alternative under NEPA). The Council transmitted the recommended management measures to NMFS on April 24, 2026, and published them on its website ( https://www.pcouncil.org ).

Under the FMP, the ocean salmon management cycle begins May 16 and continues through until the effective date of the 2027 management measures. This final rule is effective on May 16, 2026, consistent with the FMP, and governs the federally managed ocean salmon fisheries from that date until the effective date of the 2027 management measures, which we expect to be May 16, 2027. Fisheries in 2026 that were open prior to May 16, 2026, were governed by the final rule implementing the salmon fishery management measures for the 2025 ocean salmon fishing season (90 FR 20810, May 16, 2025; 90 FR 26943, June 25, 2025). Salmon fisheries that were scheduled to open before May 16, 2026, under the 2025 rule are:

• Commercial ocean salmon fisheries from the U.S./Canada border to the U.S./Mexico border;

• Recreational ocean salmon fisheries from Cape Falcon, OR, to Humbug Mountain, OR;

• Recreational ocean salmon fisheries from the Oregon/California border to the U.S./Mexico border; and

• Treaty Indian troll ocean salmon fisheries north of Cape Falcon.

Several fisheries scheduled to open between March 15, 2026, and May 15, 2026, were closed or modified through inseason action in response to updated salmon stock forecast information for 2026. Analysts included the impacts of all fisheries occurring between March 15, 2026, and May 15, 2026, in their assessment of the impacts of 2026 fisheries on individual stocks.

The environmental assessment (EA) for this action comprises the documents described above (PRE I, PRE II, and PRE III), providing an analysis of environmental and socioeconomic effects under NEPA. The EA and its related Finding of No Significant Impact are posted on the NMFS WCR website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/laws-policies/west-coast-salmon-harvest-nepa-documents ).

The FMP requires that the fisheries be managed to meet escapement-based annual catch limits (ACLs), requirements to limit impacts on species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), obligations of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) between the United States and Canada, and other conservation and management objectives. In addition, all regulations must be consistent with other applicable laws, including Tribal treaties and other sources of law regarding Tribal fisheries. The ocean salmon fisheries managed under the FMP are mixed-stock fisheries, and NMFS and the State and Tribal managers use “weak stock” management to avoid exceeding limits for the stocks with the most constraining limits. Abundance forecasts for individual salmon stocks can vary significantly from one year to the next; therefore, the stocks that constrain the fishery in one year may differ from those that constrain the fishery in the next. For 2026, the stocks described below will constrain fisheries.

Fisheries south of Cape Falcon, Oregon, are limited in 2026 primarily by conservation concerns for Klamath River fall-run Chinook salmon (KRFC), Sacramento River fall-run Chinook salmon (SRFC), ESA-listed California Coastal (CC) Chinook salmon, and ESA- listed Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon.

Fisheries north of Cape Falcon are limited by conservation requirements for the natural spawning component of the ESA-listed lower Columbia River coho salmon (Lower Columbia Natural or LCN coho salmon) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), ESA-listed Oregon coast natural (OCN) coho salmon, and the ESA-listed lower Columbia River (LCR) natural tule Chinook salmon. Based on the most recent 3-year geometric means of spawning escapement (2022-2024), Queets River spring/summer Chinook salmon, which were designated as overfished in 2023, since 2024 has met the criteria for being classified as not overfished, rebuilding, and the stock will continue to be managed under the rebuilding plan until it is rebuilt. It was not a limiting stock in planning the 2026 ocean salmon fishing season.

The limitations imposed to protect these stocks are described below. The management measures for 2026 are designed to avoid exceeding these limitations.

KRFC (non-ESA-listed): KRFC were declared overfished in 2018. The most recent 3-year geometric mean of spawners of 34,093 (2023-2025) is above the minimum stock size threshold (MSST = 30,525); therefore, KRFC no longer meets the criteria for overfished status and is now considered not overfished-rebuilding. Fisheries will continue to be managed under the rebuilding plan adopted in 2020 consistent with the requirements of the MSA and the FMP (See 50 CFR 660.413(a)) until the stock is determined to be rebuilt.

The KRFC salmon stock has been managed under de minimis exploitation rates that apply when forecast escapement is below the level associated with maximum sustainable yield (S MSY ) since 2020. Under the rebuilding plan, which includes the harvest control rule for KRFC described in the FMP, the 2026 forecast allows only de minimis fishing this year, i.e., a total allowable exploitation rate of 25 percent (including all ocean and river fisheries, including tribal fisheries). This limit will constrain fisheries south of Cape Falcon. The potential for critically low natural spawner abundance could be considered high based on the STT review of the factors in Section 3.3.6.1 of the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP (PFMC 2026[Pre-II]). The 2026 management measures are forecast to result in an escapement of 30,143 KRFC natural spawners, which is below the stock's MSST (30,525). A natural-area escapement of 30,143 adults would represent the 18th lowest value over the past 48 years of data.

Environmental indicators for KRFC are consistent with low returns in 2026 and 2027. Removal of the four lower Klamath River dams has been completed, opening several hundred miles of new habitat, and restoration actions are underway. However, considerable uncertainty exists over how removal of the lower four Klamath River dams completed in 2024 might affect adult recolonization, spawning, and juvenile productivity.

SRFC (non-ESA-listed): The preliminary 2026 Sacramento Index (SI) forecast is 392,349, the highest since 2022. Application of this forecast to the SRFC harvest control rule results in a maximum allowable exploitation rate (ER) of 52 percent and a minimum hatchery and natural area escapement of 188,328 adults. However, cautious management is warranted this year given a number of factors, including the recent overfished status of the stock and relatively low returns that were below preseason expectations in recent years. SRFC was declared overfished in 2018. In 2021, NMFS declared the SRFC stock rebuilt because of increased escapements in 2019 and 2020. The adopted management measures result in a projected escapement of 211,143, which is well above the upper end of the conservation objective range of 122,000-180,000 combined hatchery and natural area adult spawners and above the Allowable Catch Limit of 188,328 spawners for the stock. Indicators for the SRFC return in 2026 are mixed, which lead the Council to design fisheries with the goal of ensuring escapement of at least 180,000 fish, the high end of the conservation objective in the FMP. On one hand, the 2026 forecast is the highest since 2022. The 2025 escapement exceeded expectations and was well above the escapement floor. The stock status is above the overfished threshold. On the other hand, escapements in the previous 5 years were projected to be above the escapement floor and generally fell well short of preseason projections even though fisheries were closed or severely constrained in 2023-2025. The pattern of low recent year escapements, combined with higher than anticipated exploitation rates, and over-forecasting remain a cause for concern for 2026. Habitat indicators for SRFC in 2026 are mixed, but jack returns to hatcheries in 2024 and 2025 were relatively strong.

Habitat indicators for the most recent brood years suggest outmigration flows were improved for SRFC, and early marine predation pressure may have been relatively low, but recent outmigration temperatures were unfavorably warm. The Sacramento River experienced low flows and high temperatures in recent years associated with decades of frequent droughts and poor ocean conditions; these conditions have adversely affected the stock. Escapement of natural area spawners for this stock were also poor for much of the past decade, limiting the stocks' ability to take advantage when stream flows are favorable. Jack returns (immature Chinook salmon are a predictor of adult returns in the subsequent year) to hatcheries in 2024 and 2025 were stronger than in recent years suggesting stronger returns of SRFC in 2026. One note of caution is that thiamine levels in eggs from the 2024 and 2025 broods indicate high levels of deficiency that could cause upward of 25 percent egg-fry mortality in natural spawners.

SONCC coho salmon (ESA-listed threatened): The SONCC coho salmon ESU has been listed as threatened under the ESA since 1997. Conservation concerns for ESA-listed SONCC coho salmon will limit fisheries south of Cape Falcon in 2026. The SONCC coho salmon ESU consists of all naturally produced populations of coho salmon from coastal streams between Cape Blanco, OR, and Punta Gorda, CA, and limited artificial propagation programs. In April 2022, NMFS approved new harvest control rules for SONCC coho salmon that limit the total fishery (marine and freshwater) exploitation rate to 15 percent for all populations within the SONCC ESU except the Trinity River coho salmon population, which is limited to 16 percent. Coho salmon retention is not permitted in California ocean salmon fisheries. The management measures recommended by the Council for 2026 are consistent with these harvest control rules.

CC Chinook salmon (ESA-listed Threatened): The CC Chinook salmon ESU has been listed as threatened under the ESA since 1999. The ESU has been managed for a conservation objective consistent with the ESA consultation standard not to exceed a 16 percent age-4 ocean harvest rate (HR) on KRFC salmon. In 2024, following several years in which this standard was exceeded, NMFS approved a set of management measures to avoid further exceedances. 50 CFR 660.410(d). One of the measures is to apply a buffer on the consultation standard. The amount of the buffer is determined as follows: NMFS and the Council calculate the average percent error (defined as the difference between the preseason projected HR and the post-season estimated HR divided by the post-season estimated HR and expressed as a percentage) averaged over the most recent 5 years and apply the average percent error to the consultation standard. Only positive percent error will be applied because the intent is to keep the post-season harvest rate below the conservation objective. For 2026, the percent error is 43.3 percent. Therefore the 2026 ocean salmon fisheries will be managed for a buffered pre-season age-4 KRFC harvest rate of 8.6 percent ( i.e., 16 percent age-4 KRFC ocean HR-(0.463*0.16 percent age-4 KRFC)) so as not to exceed the consultation standard of an age-4 KRFC HR of 16 percent. The management measures at 50 CFR 660.410(d) also require an allowable harvest level, landing and possession limits, a catch trigger, quick reporting and inseason management to ensure the fishery does not exceed the harvest rate. The 2024 biological opinion determined that authorization of the ocean salmon fishery in the EEZ through promulgation of regulations implementing the FMP, including the CC Chinook salmon conservation objective and implementation of the new management measures, would not jeopardize the CC Chinook salmon ESU.

LCR coho salmon (ESA-listed threatened): The LCR coho salmon ESU has been listed as threatened under the ESA since 2005. In 2015, NMFS conducted the most recent ESA section 7 consultation and issued a biological opinion regarding the effects of federal fisheries and fisheries in the Columbia River on LCR coho salmon. The opinion analyzed the use of a harvest matrix to manage impacts on LCR coho salmon. Management under the FMP is focused on LCN coho salmon, the natural component of the LCR coho salmon ESU. Under the matrix, the allowable harvest in a given year depends on indicators of marine survival and parental escapement that influence spawning in the current year. In 2026, federal ocean salmon fisheries and commercial and recreational salmon fisheries in state waters, including the mainstem Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, must be managed subject to a total exploitation rate limit on LCR coho salmon not to exceed 23 percent. In 2026, LCR coho salmon will constrain the salmon fisheries in the EEZ, particularly those north of Cape Falcon, such that, when combined with commercial and recreational fisheries in state marine waters and the mainstem Columbia River, the ESA requirement is met.

LCR Chinook salmon (ESA-listed threatened): The LCR Chinook salmon ESU comprises a spring component, a far-north migrating bright component, and a tule component. The bright and tule components both have fall run timing. There are 21 separate populations within the tule component of this ESU. Unlike the spring or bright populations of the ESU, LCR tule populations are caught in large numbers in Federal fisheries off the southern U.S. West Coast, as well as fisheries to the north (Canada and Alaska) and in the Columbia River. Therefore, this component of the ESU is the one most likely to constrain Federal fisheries in the area between the U.S. Canada border and Cape Falcon. After accounting for anticipated impacts in northern fisheries and other fisheries that are outside the U.S West Coast EEZ, these Federal fisheries are managed subject to an abundance-based management (ABM) framework that NMFS analyzed in a 2012 biological opinion. Applying the ABM framework to the 2026 preseason abundance forecast, the total LCR tule exploitation rate for all salmon fisheries is limited to a maximum of 41 percent. Fisheries will be constrained north of Cape Falcon in 2026 such that when combined with all other salmon fisheries in the ocean and the Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, the ESA requirement is met.

OCN coho salmon (ESA-listed threatened): OCN coho salmon is an aggregate coho salmon stock that largely corresponds to the Oregon coast coho salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) and is a component of the Oregon Production Index (OPI) area coho. OPI area coho production is dominated by hatchery coho salmon. Allowable fishery impacts on OCN coho salmon are determined annually using a matrix that considers parental escapement and OPI smolt-to-jack survival. The 2026 preseason prediction for OCN (river and lake systems combined) is 218,600 coho. Applying the harvest control matrix for 2026, the maximum allowable exploitation rate is a combined marine/freshwater exploitation rate not to exceed 30.0 percent.

Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW) (ESA-listed endangered): The SRKW distinct population segment was listed under the ESA as endangered in 2005 (70 FR 69903, November 18, 2005). In 2021, NMFS approved Amendment 21 to the FMP (86 FR 51017, September 14, 2021), which establishes a Chinook salmon annual abundance management threshold below which specific measures to limit the effects of the ocean salmon fishery on Chinook salmon prey availability for SRKWs are implemented. These measures include time and area closures, a quota limitation for the north of Cape Falcon management area, and temporal shifts in fishing. The forecast abundance compared with the Chinook salmon abundance threshold is reported annually in the above-referenced preseason reports as required by the FMP.

Because the pre-season estimate of the abundance of Chinook salmon in 2026 exceeds the threshold in the FMP, additional management measures are not required by the FMP, including amendment 21 (Preseason Report III; PFMC 2026).

ACLs are required for all stocks or stock complexes in the fishery that are not managed under an international agreement, listed under the ESA, or designated as hatchery stocks. An ACL is the level of annual catch of a stock or stock complex that serves as the basis for invoking accountability measures when certain conditions are met under the MSA (Section 3.3.5 of the FMP). For salmon stocks, ACLs are defined as levels of escapement, as explained further below. Under the FMP, ACLs are set for two Chinook salmon stocks, SRFC and KRFC, and one coho salmon stock, Willapa Bay natural coho salmon. The SFRC and KRFC salmon stocks are indicator stocks for the Central Valley Fall Chinook salmon complex and the SONCC Chinook salmon complex, respectively. The Far North Migrating Coastal Chinook salmon complex (FNMC) includes a group of Chinook salmon stocks that are caught primarily in fisheries north of Cape Falcon and other fisheries occurring north of the U.S./Canada border. No ACL is set for FNMC stocks because they are managed subject to provisions of the PST between the United States and Canada (the MSA provides an international exception from ACL requirements that applies to stocks or stock complexes subject to management under an international agreement, which NMFS defines by regulation “any bilateral or multilateral treaty, convention, or agreement which relates to fishing and to which the United States is a party” (50 CFR 600.310(h)(1)(ii)). Other Chinook salmon stocks caught in fisheries north of Cape Falcon are ESA-listed or hatchery-produced and are managed consistent with ESA consultations, hatchery goals, or the provisions of the PST. Willapa Bay natural coho salmon is the only coho salmon stock for which an ACL is set, as the other coho salmon stocks in the FMP are either ESA-listed, hatchery-produced, or managed under the PST.

ACLs for salmon stocks are escapement-based, which means they establish a number of adults that must escape the fisheries to return to the spawning grounds. ACLs are set based on the annual potential spawner abundance forecast and a fishing rate reduced to account for scientific uncertainty. In addition to ACLs, as described above, SRFC and KRFC have conservation objectives expressed in terms of escapement goals that were developed prior to the requirement for ACLs. Where the conservation objectives exceed the ACLs, the management measures are designed to achieve the conservation objectives. The surviving stock after fishery-related mortality is generally referred to as spawning escapement (S), and the proportion of the stock that succumbs to fishing-related mortality is generally referred to as the exploitation rate (F). These metrics constitute conservation objectives for FMP Stocks. In addition, F MSY is the fishing mortality rate that would result in MSY, S acceptable biological catch (ABC) is the spawner escapement that is associated with the acceptable biological catch, and S OFL is the spawning escapement associated with the overfishing limit (OFL).

For SRFC in 2025, F MSY = 0.58. The SRFC F MSY proxy of 0.58 was adopted in November 2024 following the 2024 Methodology Review. The OFL for SRFC is S OFL = 392,349 × (1−0.58) = 164,787. Because SRFC is a Tier-2 stock, F ABC = F MSY × 0.90 = 0.52, and F ACL = F ABC . The ABC for SRFC is S ABC = 392,349 × (1−0.52) = 188,328, with S ACL = S ABC . The recommended management measures provide for a projected SRFC spawning escapement of 211,100.

For KRFC in 2025, F MSY = 0.71, the value estimated from a stock-specific spawner-recruit analysis (STT 2005). The OFL for KRFC is = 40,191 × (1−0.71) = 11,655. Because KRFC is a Tier-1 stock, F ABC = F MSY × 0.95 = 0.68, and F ACL = F ABC . The ABC for KRFC is S ABC = 40,191 × (1−0.68) = 12,861, with S ACL = S ABC . The recommended management measures provide for a projected KRFC spawning escapement of 30,144.

For Willapa Bay natural coho salmon in 2025, F MSY = 0.74, the value estimated from a stock-specific spawner-recruit analysis. The OFL for Willapa Bay natural coho salmon is S OFL = 35,153 × (1−0.74) = 9,140. Because Willapa Bay natural coho salmon are a Tier-1 stock, F ABC = F MSY × 0.95 = 0.70, and F ACL = F ABC . The ABC for Willapa Bay natural coho salmon is S ABC = 35,153 × (1−0.70) = 10,546, with S ACL = S ABC . The recommended management measures provide for a projected Willapa Bay natural coho salmon spawning escapement of 29,800.

In summary, the 2026 management measures are expected to result in escapements greater than required to meet the ACLs for all three stocks with defined ACLs.

The Council invited written comments on developing 2026 salmon management measures in their notice announcing public meetings and hearings (90 FR 61127, December 30, 2025). At its March meeting, the Council developed 3 alternatives for 2026 commercial and recreational salmon management measures, having a range of quotas, season structure, and impacts, as well as 3 alternatives for 2026 North of Cape Falcon Treaty Indian troll ocean salmon management measures. These alternatives are described in detail in PRE II. Subsequently, comments were taken at three public hearings held in March, staffed by representatives of the Council, NMFS, and the states. The Council received 329 written comments via their electronic portal and 8 oral comments on the 3 alternatives for the 2026 ocean salmon fisheries for consideration at the April Council meeting. The 3 public hearings were attended by a total of 158 people; 37 people provided oral comments. Comments came from individual fishers, fishing associations, fish buyers, processors, conservation organizations, and the general public. Written and oral comments addressed the 2026 management alternatives described in PRE II and generally expressed preferences for a specific alternative or for particular season structures. All written comments were made available via the Council's online briefing books for the March and April 2026 Council meetings. In addition to comments collected at the public hearings and those submitted directly to the Council, several people provided oral comments at the March and April 2026 Council meetings. Written and oral comments received were considered by the Council, which includes a representative from NMFS, in developing the recommended management measures transmitted to NMFS on April 23, 2026. NMFS also invited comments to be submitted directly to the Council or NMFS via the Federal Rulemaking Portal ( https://www.regulations.gov ) in a notice (91 FR 7263, February 17, 2026); NMFS received no comments via the Federal Rulemaking Portal.

Comments on alternatives for commercial salmon fisheries. Those testifying on north of Cape Falcon commercial salmon fisheries at the Washington hearing supported the non-treaty quotas and season structure from Alternative I. Alternative I allows for time/area adjustments over quota reductions to meet conservation objectives. These commenters expressed support for inseason management as an invaluable tool to meet conservation objectives while allowing flexibility to attain the full quota. They highlighted higher projected ex vessel revenue under Alternative I compared to Alternative III and underscored the importance of the fishery to multigenerational fishing families and coastal communities. Those testifying on south of Cape Falcon commercial salmon fisheries at the Oregon hearing primarily supported Alternative I with some commenters interested in combining elements of Alternative I and III. Concerns were raised that the effort data being used may no longer reflect current participation levels in the fleet. In response, Oregon representatives noted that the most recently available data from active fishing seasons are used and that this issue is carefully considered by modelers. The written comments from California showed no single unified preference between the alternatives. Those testifying at the California hearing expressed their frustrations with reduced fishing days, harvest limits, and low weekly landing limits in the range of alternatives, stating that they do not provide enough opportunity to be profitable. They testified that landing limits also affect vessel operators differently based on vessel size; larger vessels have higher operating costs and more deck hands versus smaller vessels, so profitability is not the same across the fleet. They strongly urged the Council to provide a season that is economically viable.

Comments on alternatives for recreational fisheries. Those testifying on fishery management alternatives north of Cape Falcon favored Alternative I for the length of the season. They expressed their view that Alternative I would provide a better mid-June through September season, while Alternative III could reduce opportunity and cause economic hardship. Those commenting on fishery alternatives south of Cape Falcon in Oregon expressed support for Alternative I. The majority of comments from California supported fishing under a hybrid of Alternative I and Alternative III by adding the fall fishery in Alternative I to Alternative III. Appreciation was expressed for the opportunity provided in the 2025 season, and even though it was limited, the economic boost to the local ports and small businesses benefited the coastal communities.

The Council considered these comments in developing its final recommendation to allow fishing opportunities and meet community needs while also meeting conservation objectives and ACLs, and the requirements of other applicable laws. Additional comments were made regarding the fisheries that were not encompassed in the points made above. We respond to key comments below.

Comment 1: Comments were received from the Let Our Salmon Come Home campaign. These comments advocated for the Council to adopt positions and fisheries management alternatives that support ecosystems, watersheds, and communities that depend on salmon. They also advocated for more terminal vs. mixed-stock fisheries, encouraging the Council to engage with the Pacific Salmon Commission to constrain northern fisheries in the upcoming renegotiation of the PST Annex.

Response: This final rule is consistent with the MSA including the National Standards, the FMP, and other applicable laws including the ESA, PST, and tribal fishing rights. NMFS and the Council's regulatory jurisdiction under the MSA is limited to the EEZ off the U.S. West Coast—terminal area fisheries are managed by the states and tribes. The current PST Annex is relevant to this final rule as other applicable law; the renegotiation of the Annex is not relevant to this final rule.

Comment 2: The Golden Gate Fishermen's Association (GGFA), which represents sport fishing interests in California, expressed three primary concerns, which it indicated were generally in alignment with the positions of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, which represents commercial fishing interests in California. First, GGFA asserted that the alternatives for the 2026 ocean salmon season are unnecessarily restrictive, limiting the fleet's access and opportunities. The management measures rely on overly cautious management frameworks and precautionary assumptions and requirements that do not reflect actual, present-day environmental and fishing conditions. Second, the two models used to predict total harvest give different results and should be aligned with the stocks that are constraining the fishery to increase opportunity while remaining within conservation limits. The California ocean salmon fishery is a mixed-stock fishery, yet the models currently being used are not designed to predict total harvest under mixed-stock conditions. Third, the current calculation of ocean harvest rates does not accurately reflect the California recreational fleet's conservation record. While the models include years where harvest exceeded thresholds, they failed to account for the 2 recent years when the recreational fishery was closed (2023-2024) and its limited opening in 2025.

Response: Although not all of the issues in the comment apply to the sport fishery for the referenced management framework, given the alignment of positions expressed in the comment, NMFS feels it is appropriate to respond to the full range of concerns.

First, 2026 is the first year of full implementation of the harvest management framework for the CC Chinook salmon stock, an ESA-listed species. The framework was adopted into regulation in 2024. It includes a variety of management measures (including a buffer on the consultation standard and landing and possession limits for the commercial fleet) designed to ensure the fishery does not exceed the ESA take limit for CC Chinook salmon. A buffer is applied to the conservation objective in order to account for error between the pre-season prediction and the post-season estimates of the harvest rate in the previous 5 years. The closer the fishery is to preseason expectations, the smaller the buffer. In 2026, applying the buffer to the conservation objective results in a pre-season ocean harvest rate of 8.6 percent for age-4 KRFC (increased from 7.7 percent in 2025). A total catch limit and landing and possession limits in the framework currently apply only to the commercial fleet, although the State of California is managing the recreational fishery under a harvest guideline to be precautionary. The buffered conservation objective applies to both the commercial and recreational fleets ( i.e., 8.6 percent in 2026). The framework was developed after the fishery exceeded the conservation objective for the CC Chinook salmon ESU from 2018 through 2022 by 88 percent on average despite updates to harvest management models intended to improve the predicted harvest rates in the ocean salmon fishery. Significantly higher than expected catch rates in the California commercial troll fishery and resulting higher than expected Chinook salmon catch were major contributors exceeding the ESA take limit for CC Chinook salmon in these years. The framework is intended to directly address the primary contributors to the exceedance of the limit and ensure the fishery stays within the limit in the future. The framework also includes provisions that reduce constraints if the fishery performs within its anticipated impacts.

Second, there are two main harvest models: the Sacramento harvest model, which forecasts the number of SRFC that will be harvested in ocean fisheries, and the Klamath harvest model, which forecasts the number of KRFC that will be harvested. Both of these models are designed to forecast the total mixed-stock or all stock harvest by applying historical average proportions of SRFC and KRFC to the total harvest.

Between the two stocks considered, SRFC is much more abundant than KRFC in ocean fisheries, particularly in central and southern California. When the projected harvest is expanded by historical average proportions to determine the total all stock harvest, the Sacramento harvest model expands the forecast by approximately 10-20 percent while the Klamath harvest model requires an expansion of 92 percent. Because the Klamath model relies on such a large expansion factor, i.e., expansion of stock specific model harvest projections by historical proportions to estimate the total harvest, the Sacramento harvest model is more accurate for the purpose of setting catch limits under the CC Chinook salmon framework.

Third, NMFS acknowledges the significant sacrifices made by the fishing industry over the last 3 years in response to low KRFC and SRFC abundances and uncertainty in abundance forecasts over the last 5-10 years. The CC Chinook salmon framework was developed to ensure that the harvest rates on CC Chinook salmon stay within the ESA limit. The regulatory framework is intentionally designed for the buffer on the ESA limit to decrease in future years if fishery performance proves to be consistent with the established conservation goals. In setting the harvest rate limit each year under the framework provisions, the performance of the fishery relative to the anticipated harvest rate is taken into account. NMFS considered the fishery performance in 2024 and 2025 in setting the 2026 harvest limit for CC Chinook salmon. Given past performance of the fishery, the uncertainty this year given the 3 years of closure for the commercial fleet and closure or significant constraint on the recreational fishery, precaution is warranted. For example, the 2025 recreational harvest guideline was exceeded by 25 percent.

NMFS remains committed to using the best available science to balance the long-term viability of the salmon fishery with necessary conservation requirements.

The ocean harvest levels and management measures for the 2026 fisheries are designed to apportion the burden of protecting the weak stocks identified and discussed in PRE I reasonably among ocean fisheries and to provide harvest opportunity of natural and hatchery runs surplus to freshwater (or inside) fishery and spawning needs. Management measures in the area north of Cape Falcon were shaped to comply with the FMP objectives, including consultation standards, and take into consideration year-specific circumstances. The 2026 Chinook salmon total allowable catch (TAC) is slightly lower than the 2025 TAC due to slightly lower forecasted abundances of Columbia River fall Chinook salmon. The 2026 coho salmon TAC is increased compared to last year's TAC mainly due to higher abundance forecasts for Columbia River coho salmon stocks. Fisheries south of Cape Falcon will be heavily constrained by KRFC, CC Chinook salmon, and SONCC coho salmon. Based on the information provided in the four reports described above, the EA, and discussion at public meetings and taking into account public comments, NMFS concludes the recommended measures are consistent with the requirements of the MSA, the ESA, U.S. obligations to Indian Tribes with federally recognized fishing rights, and U.S. international obligations regarding Pacific salmon. Accordingly, NMFS, through this final rule, approves and implements the Council's recommendations.

The timing of the March and April Council meetings makes it impracticable for the Council to recommend fishing seasons that begin before mid-May of the same year. Therefore, this action also establishes the early season fisheries that open earlier than May 16, 2027. These early openings could be modified via inseason action depending on the 2027 abundance forecasts for the affected stocks. The commercial and recreational seasons are scheduled to open after May 15, 2026, as indicated in Section 1. Commercial, Non-Indian, Troll Fishery Management Measures and Section 2. Recreational Fishery Management of this final rule. The Treaty Indian ocean troll seasons will open in 2026 as indicated in Section 3. Treaty Indian Management Measures .

Sections 1, 2, and 3 below set out the final specifications and management measures for the commercial, recreational, and Treaty Indian ocean salmon fisheries for 2026 and, as specified, for 2027. Section 4 provides requirements for halibut retention; Section 5 provides geographical landmarks; and Section 6 specifies notice procedures for inseason modifications. Those elements of the measures set forth in sections 1 through 3 that refer to fisheries implemented prior to May 16, 2026, were promulgated in our 2025 rule (90 FR 20810, May 16, 2025; 90 FR 26943, June 25, 2025), as modified by inseason action, and are included for information purposes and to provide continuity for the public across fishing seasons and for states adopting conforming regulations each May that refer to the Federal rule for the same year. Fish caught in the areas south of Point Arena between May 1, 2026, and the date on which this rule becomes effective, are counted towards the harvest limit of 83,000 described in this rule.

As discussed above, aspects of these measures may be adjusted through inseason action taken under 50 CFR 660.409, based on information that becomes available during the season. Harvest guidelines and vessel-based landing and possession limits will be considered inseason. Inseason action to close fisheries, modify season dates, or modify vessel-based landing and possession limits may be considered when total commercial harvest in this management area is approaching its harvest guideline.

Parts A, B, and C of this section contain the requirements for participation in the 2026 commercial, non-Indian, salmon troll fishery. Part A identifies fishing seasons and areas from north to south, the salmon species and catch or landing limits allowed to be caught during the seasons, and any other special restrictions effective in the area. Part B specifies minimum size limits. Part C specifies other requirements, definitions, restrictions, and exceptions.

Inseason modifications of the regulations may be necessary to address conditions arising during the fishing season. See 50 CFR 660.409.

May 16 through the earlier of June 29 or the attainment of 37,300 Chinook salmon. If the Chinook salmon quota is exceeded, the excess will be deducted from the summer all-salmon season described below.

Subarea guidelines are in place for the following areas:

No more than 7,460 Chinook salmon.

No more than 5,590 Chinook salmon.

Landing and possession limits are in place for the following subareas and will be evaluated weekly, inseason. Landing week is Thursday through Wednesday.

May 16-20, 50 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week.

Beginning May 21, 80 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week.

May 16-20, 60 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week.

Beginning May 21, 250 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week.

May 16-20, 50 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week.

Beginning May 21, 80 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week.

Open seven days per week. All salmon, except coho salmon.

In 2027, the season will open May 1, consistent with all preseason regulations in place in this area and subareas during May 16-June 29, 2026, including subarea salmon catch limits and vessel landing and possession limits.

July 1 through the earlier of September 30, the attainment of 18,700 Chinook salmon, or the attainment of 19,600 marked coho salmon.

Open 7 days per week. All salmon. All coho salmon must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip. No chum salmon retention north of Cape Alava, Washington, in August and September.

Landing and possession limit of 50 marked coho salmon per vessel per landing week. Landing week is Thursday through Wednesday.

Landing limits will be evaluated weekly, inseason.

For all commercial troll fisheries north of Cape Falcon: Mandatory closed areas include the Cape Flattery Control Zone, Salmon Troll Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA), and Columbia Control Zone.

Vessels must land and deliver their salmon within 24 hours of any closure of this fishery. Vessels may not land fish east of the Sekiu River or east of Tongue Point, Oregon.

During any single trip, only one side of the Leadbetter Point line may be fished.

Vessels fishing for or in possession of salmon north of Leadbetter Point must land and deliver all species of fish in a Washington port and must possess a Washington troll and/or salmon delivery license. For delivery to Washington ports south of Leadbetter Point, vessels must notify the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) at 360-249-1215 prior to crossing the Leadbetter Point line with area fished, total Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and halibut catch aboard, and destination with approximate time of delivery.

Vessels fishing or in possession of salmon while fishing south of Leadbetter Point must land and deliver all species of fish within the area and south of Leadbetter Point, except that Oregon permitted vessels may also land all species of fish in Garibaldi, Oregon. Washington-permitted vessels may also land all species of fish north of Leadbetter Point. For delivery to Washington ports north of Leadbetter Point, vessels must notify WDFW at 360-249-1215 prior to crossing the Leadbetter Point line with area fished, total Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and halibut catch aboard, and destination with approximate time of delivery. Vessels in possession of salmon south of Leadbetter Point who are returning to port north of Leadbetter Point must offload all fish from the vessel prior to beginning a new fishing trip. All Chinook salmon caught north of Cape Falcon and being delivered by boat to Garibaldi, Oregon, must meet the minimum legal total length of 28 inches (71.1 centimeters (cm)) for Chinook salmon for south of Cape Falcon seasons unless the season in waters off Garibaldi, Oregon, have been closed for Chinook salmon retention for more than 48 hours.

Under state law, vessels must report their catch on a state fish receiving ticket. Oregon State regulations require all fishers landing salmon into Oregon from any fishery between Leadbetter Point, Washington, and Cape Falcon, Oregon, to notify the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) at least 1 hour prior to delivery by either calling 541-857-2546 or sending notification via email to OR.trollreport@odfw.oregon.gov . Notification shall include vessel name and number, number of salmon by species, port of landing, location of delivery, and estimated time of delivery.

Vessels in possession of salmon north of the Queets River may not cross the Queets River line without first notifying WDFW at 360-249-1215 with area fished, total Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and halibut catch abroad, and destination. Vessels in possession of salmon south of the Queets River may not cross the Queets River line without first notifying WDFW at 360-249-1215 with area fished, total Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and halibut aboard, and destination.

Vessels fishing in a subarea north of Cape Falcon with a higher limit may transit through and land in a subarea with a lower limit. Prior to crossing the subarea line at Leadbetter Point or Queets River, vessels must notify WDFW at 360-249-1215 with the area fished, total Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and halibut catch aboard, and destination with approximate time of delivery.

April 14, 2026-May 15, 2026;

September 1-October 31.

Open 7 days per week. All salmon except coho salmon, except during the non-mark-selective coho salmon fishery as described below. All vessels fishing in the area must land their salmon in the state of Oregon.

Beginning September 1, all salmon until the earlier of September 30 or when a 7,000 non-mark-selective coho salmon quota is met. If the coho salmon quota is met prior to September 30, then all salmon except coho salmon season continues. No more than 100 coho salmon per vessel per landing week when retention allowed and no more than 100 Chinook salmon allowed per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday).

Oregon state regulations require all fishers landing coho salmon into Oregon from any fishery between Cape Falcon, Oregon, and Humbug Mountain to notify ODFW within at least 1 hour of delivery by either calling 541-857-2546 or sending notification via email to OR.trollreport@odfw.oregon.gov . Notification shall include vessel name and number, number of salmon by species, port of landing and location of delivery, and estimated time of delivery.

In 2027, the season will open March 15 for all salmon except coho salmon. All vessels fishing in the area between Cape Falcon and Humbug Mountain must land their salmon in the state of Oregon. Gear restrictions are the same as in 2026 (identified below).

May 16-June 30;

July 16-July 31.

Open 7 days per week. All salmon except coho salmon. All vessels fishing in the area must land their salmon in Oregon.

In July, all vessels landing salmon south of the Heceta Bank Line are required to notify ODFW prior to crossing the Heceta Bank Line by either calling 541-857-2546 or sending notification via email to OR.trollreport@odfw.oregon.gov . Notification shall include vessel name and number, number of salmon by species and halibut aboard, port of landing and location of delivery, and estimated time of delivery.

In 2027, the season will open March 15 for all salmon except coho salmon. All vessels fishing in the area must land their salmon in the state of Oregon. Gear restrictions are the same as in 2026 (identified below).

May 16-June 30.

Open 7 days per week. All salmon except coho salmon. All vessels fishing in the area must land their salmon in the state of Oregon.

In 2027, the season will open on March 15 for all salmon except coho salmon. All vessels fishing in the area must land their salmon in Oregon. Gear restrictions are the same as in 2026 (identified below).

April 14-30;

May 16-June 17.

Open 7 days per week. All salmon except coho salmon. All vessels fishing in the area must land their salmon in Oregon.

In 2027, the season will open on March 15 for all salmon except coho salmon. Gear restrictions are the same as in 2026 (identified below).

Closed.

In 2027, the season will open May 1 under a 3,000 Chinook salmon quota. Landing and possession limit of 20 Chinook salmon per vessel per day. All salmon except coho salmon. All fish caught in this area must be landed within the area, within 24 hours of any closure of the fishery, and prior to fishing outside the area. Electronic fish tickets must be submitted within 24 hours of landing. KMZ closed.

Closed.

Closed.

In 2027, the season opens on May 1 for all salmon except coho salmon. Gear restrictions are the same as in 2022 (87 FR 29690, May 16, 2022). All salmon caught in this area must be landed within 24 hours of any closure of the fishery. Electronic fish tickets must be submitted within 24 hours of landing.

May 1-6, 2026, and May 9-13, 2026;

May 16-20, May 23-29;

August 1-7, 13-16, 25-27.

Harvest limit of 83,000 Chinook salmon applicable to all open periods and management areas south of Point Arena from May through August. Landing limit of 160 Chinook salmon per vessel per open period applies across the combined management areas south of Point Arena. Possession limit of 160 Chinook salmon per vessel and open period.

All salmon except coho salmon. All fish caught in this area must be landed south of 40°10′ N within 24 hours of any closure of the fishery. Electronic fish tickets must be submitted within 24 hours of landing.

September 4-8, 11-15, 18-22, 25-30.

Harvest limit of 20,000 Chinook salmon, applicable to all September open periods. Landing limit of 100 Chinook salmon per vessel per open period. Possession limit of 100 Chinook salmon per vessel per open period. All salmon caught in this area must be landed within 24 hours of any closure of the fishery.

All salmon except coho salmon. All salmon caught in this area must be landed between Point Arena and Pigeon Point. Electronic fish tickets must be submitted within 24 hours of landing.

In 2027, the season opens May 1 for all salmon except coho salmon. Gear restrictions are the same as in 2026 (identified below). Electronic fish tickets must be submitted within 24 hours of landing.

May 1-6, 2026, and May 9-13, 2026;

May 16-20, 23-29;

June 3-8, 12-16, 26-30;

July 6-10, 20-24;

August 1-7, 13-16, 25-27.

Harvest limit of 83,000 Chinook salmon applicable to all open periods and management areas south of Point Arena from May through August. Landing limit of 160 Chinook salmon per vessel per open period applies across the combined management areas south of Point Arena. Possession limit of 160 Chinook salmon per vessel and open period.

All salmon except coho salmon. All salmon caught in this area must be landed south of 40°10′ N lat. within 24 hours of any closure of the fishery. Electronic fish tickets must be submitted within 24 hours of landing.

In 2027, the season opens May 1 for all salmon except coho salmon. Gear restrictions are the same as in 2026 (identified below). Electronic fish tickets must be submitted within 24 hours of landing.

For all commercial troll fisheries south of Cape Falcon:

When the fishery is closed from Humbug Mountain to the Oregon/California border and open south of the Oregon/California border, vessels with fish on board caught in the open area off California may seek temporary mooring in Brookings, Oregon, prior to landing in California only if such vessels first notify ODFW prior to crossing the Oregon/California border by either calling 541-857-2546 or sending notification via email to OR.trollreport@odfw.oregon.gov . Notification shall include vessel name and number, number of salmon by species, and estimated time of arrival.

California statutes require all salmon be made available to a CDFW representative for sampling immediately at the port of landing. Any person in possession of a salmon with a missing adipose fin shall, upon request by an authorized agent or employee of the CDFW, immediately relinquish the head of the salmon to the CDFW representative (California Fish and Game Code § 8226).

A person shall, upon request by an authorized agent or employee of the CDFW, immediately relinquish, at no charge, fish or parts of fish caught or landed in California to the department for the purpose of collecting a biological sample (California Fish and Game Code § 7711(a)).