FSA makes and services direct and guaranteed loans to farmers and ranchers who are unable to obtain sufficient commercial credit at reasonable rates and terms. FSA also provides direct loan borrowers with credit counseling and supervision to help improve their financial management and increase their likelihood of success. FSA loan applicants typically include:

• Beginning farmers who do not yet meet commercial lenders' underwriting requirements; and

• Established farmers who have experienced financial setbacks due to natural disasters or other economic conditions.

FSA loans are tailored to meet the specific needs of farmers and may be used to purchase personal property, acquire farmland, finance agricultural production, or address other operational needs. The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT, Pub. L. 87-128, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 1921-2009cc-18) provides the authority for most FLP loans, including farm ownership (FO), operating (OL), and emergency (EM) loans.

In August 2023, FSA launched the AFT pilot program to provide expedited loan processing for low-risk direct loan applicants (88 FR 51260-51265). FSA extended the pilot on September 30, 2024 (89 FR 79504), and again on December 31, 2025 (90 FR 61362). AFT offers an alternative underwriting process for applicants who meet specified financial benchmarks and have a favorable repayment history, enabling accelerated application processing. The pilot initially operated in 166 service centers and was subsequently expanded; AFT has been available to all qualifying customers nationwide since January 1, 2024. The AFT pilot has substantially improved processing times for all customers without any notable impact on portfolio performance or loan repayment. During the pilot period from August 2023 through the present time, an average of 23 percent of direct loan customers qualified for AFT, and application processing time for those customers decreased by approximately 8 calendar days. These efficiencies translate into an estimated annual savings of 58,000 staff hours, allowing staff to devote additional time to assisting other applicants.

This rule permanently implements AFT and makes other regulatory changes as part of FSA's ongoing efforts to improve the timeliness and efficiency of program delivery. This action represents a step in FSA's broader initiative to deliver assistance to farmers and ranchers more efficiently.

This rule also facilitates IT modernization efforts for guaranteed loans and makes other regulatory changes to reduce administrative burdens, improve program access, and enhance overall program efficiency. The regulatory changes are organized into two groups: (1) minor policy changes; and (2) clarifications and technical corrections. Each group includes changes that apply only to direct loans, only to guaranteed loans, or to both direct and guaranteed loans.

Most of the regulatory changes in this rule do not substantially alter existing policy and are anticipated to affect a relatively small number of farmers. However, some changes are more substantial and will affect many direct and guaranteed loan customers. These changes include provisions that grant delegated authority to certain guaranteed lenders, clarify direct loan collateral valuation policies, and facilitate improvements to loan servicing processes. The delegated authority provisions streamline the process for preferred lenders—who are the most experienced and highest-performing participants in the guaranteed loan program—to obtain an FSA loan guarantee. The clarifications to collateral valuation for direct loans ensure that FSA loans remain adequately secured while reducing the time required to close loans. The loan servicing updates ensure that flexibilities related to direct loan collateral subordinations (subordination allows another lender to be paid before the Government in the event of liquidation) remain available to producers who fully comply with their loan agreements, while still protecting the Government's security interest.

The CONACT requires that all FLP applicants and loans meet specified eligibility, security, and feasibility requirements. This rule ensures that FLP regulations remain aligned with the CONACT while reflecting producer needs and modernizing underwriting standards. Although many of the changes in this rule are technical corrections or clarifications, this rule also includes minor FLP policy updates that respond to customer needs and incorporate modernized processes that more closely align with commercial agricultural lending practices.

Throughout this rule, any reference to “farm” or “farmer” also includes “ranch” or “rancher,” respectively.

FSA developed and piloted AFT, which uses data analytics to improve loan-making efficiencies. AFT uses a hybrid approach modeled after scoring tools used by commercial lenders and is designed to improve processing times for applicants who demonstrate low expected default risk based on specific financial benchmarking criteria and favorable repayment history.

To develop AFT, FSA analyzed hundreds of financial variables associated with over 100,000 direct loans to identify the common characteristics of borrowers with strong repayment histories. A streamlined approach was developed to determine which financial variables are most consistently associated with borrowers who exhibit strong repayment performance, while remaining consistent with FSA's business process constraints. These financial variables were used to develop a statistical regression model and a scoring tool to identify applicants with the highest probability of successful loan repayment. The model identified 24 percent of all direct loan applicants as eligible for AFT.

The AFT scoring tool does not use projected cash flow data. For applicants who meet or exceed the minimum AFT scoring threshold, the scoring tool provides sufficient assurance of the applicant's ability to repay. All applicants must still submit a cash flow budget. However, for those applicants later approved through the AFT process, FSA staff are not required to conduct the traditional manual verification of projected income and expenses associated with conventional projected cash flow analysis.

The absence of a cash flow analysis by FSA requires loans approved through AFT to have equally amortized installments after the first year, as a detailed cash flow analysis would otherwise be necessary to justify additional unequal installments. Loans approved through AFT are also limited to FSA's standard interest rates for the respective loan program, including the joint financing rates as provided in 7 CFR 764.154(a)(3), and are not eligible for further subsidized, limited resource interest rates. Since AFT is designed for the highest-performing borrowers, these standard rates and terms generally provide sufficient opportunity to build an adequate equity base. However, borrowers who believe they need additional unequal installments or limited resource interest rates may opt out of having their request processed through AFT, which makes those flexible options available to them.

This rule incorporates AFT into FSA's regulations, ensuring that FSA can continue offering this type of alternative underwriting process to applicants who meet established financial benchmarks. The types of loan transactions eligible for AFT are specified in 7 CFR 764.401 and include all loan transactions other than EM, youth loans (YL), and loans made in conjunction with other servicing actions. Formalizing AFT through regulation will not affect application submission requirements, eligibility requirements, authorized loan purposes, or security requirements for direct loan applicants.

USDA is modernizing the IT systems that support FLP to expedite loan delivery. This multi-year effort will begin with the guaranteed loan program and later extend to all FLP loans. The modernized system will enable electronic submission of loan applications and supporting documents, replacing the Agency's largely paper-based process, and will support electronic delivery of lender notifications and other materials that have traditionally required manual processing.

This rule makes several changes to support implementation of the modernized IT system for guaranteed loans, including clarifying that applications may be submitted electronically or by paper. It also specifies that lender notifications issued during application intake may be provided electronically or in paper form, consistent with the method of application submission.

In addition, this rule updates regulatory provisions to allow the electronic delivery and acceptance of loan approval documents, loan guarantee documents, and guaranteed loan servicing documents. It also removes prior requirements that obligated guaranteed lenders to identify specific branches covered by their lender status. Eliminating these requirements will support implementation of the modernized IT system and reduce administrative burden, as lender status will now apply to the institution as a whole.

In addition to making AFT permanent and facilitating IT modernization, FSA is making discretionary regulatory changes to clarify and amend existing processes and requirements to support farmer-focused program delivery. FSA has determined that clarifying information in the regulation will make it easier for borrowers to understand program requirements. Certain amendments and technical corrections do not constitute policy changes and are discussed in more detail later in this rule. This rule also updates cross references where necessary throughout the regulations and corrects minor grammatical errors.

As previously outlined, the regulatory changes in this rule are organized into two groups: (1) minor policy changes; and (2) clarifications and technical corrections. Each group includes changes that apply only to direct loans, only to guaranteed loans, or to both direct and guaranteed loans. The following discussion provides additional detail on the amendments identified as minor policy changes. Below that, clarifications and technical corrections are discussed, in that order.

Under current regulations, a real estate appraisal for a direct loan must have been completed within the previous 18 months at the time the Agency makes an approval decision. This requirement was originally intended to ensure that the value of real estate used to secure the loan reflects current market information and up-to-date property information. Appraisals for guaranteed loans, however, have historically allowed greater flexibility regarding the age of the appraisal.

Economic analysis shows that farm real estate values are relatively stable over the long term, with observed fluctuations generally showing increases rather than decreases in value. Therefore, commercial industry practice permits the use of an older real estate appraisal when the lender can document specific conditions related to the subject property. For FSA guaranteed loans, lenders may already rely on a real estate appraisal older than 18 months if: (1) the lender can document that market conditions have remained stable or improved; (2) the property is in the same or better condition; and (3) the property's value has remained the same or increased.

With this rule, FSA will apply a similar policy to direct loans and increase the acceptable age of a real estate appraisal for direct loans in 7 CFR 761.7. Allowing the use of real estate appraisals older than 18 months old will reduce the number of new appraisals that FSA must fund and will shorten loan processing and closing times. Before relying on an older appraisal, the authorized Agency official must document the three criteria listed above to ensure that the use of such appraisal does not increase Agency risk. This rule also establishes a maximum threshold prohibiting the use of any appraisal more than 36 months old for direct loans. This provision is intended to support and strengthen the Agency's risk-mitigation efforts.

FSA regulations for most direct loan programs currently specify that the first installment will be an interest-only payment due 12 months after loan closing, unless the loan applicant submits a written request for an alternative repayment arrangement. FSA data indicate that the majority of direct loan applicants request an alternative arrangement that allows them to begin repaying loan principal within the first 12 months after receiving their loan. Since most direct loan applicants elect not to use the interest-only installment, FSA is amending 7 CFR 764.154, 764.254, and 764.354 to remove the requirement that borrowers must submit a written request if they choose not to use an interest-only installment in the first year of a direct loan. Interest-only installments and other flexible repayment terms will continue to be available to borrowers. This change only removes the written-request requirement for borrowers who choose to begin repaying principal with their first installment or who choose to have their first installment due less than 12 months after loan closing.

FSA regulations generally require recipients of direct loans to complete a financial training course within 2 years of receiving their loan. Borrowers may request a waiver of this requirement if they have previously completed a similar training course or can demonstrate sufficient financial management skills and operational experience. Currently, borrowers must request a training waiver in writing, separate from their loan application, which creates an unnecessary administrative burden because most FSA applicants request a waiver.

This rule removes the requirement that borrowers submit a separate written request for a financial training waiver in 7 CFR 764.453 and 764.454. FSA will continue to evaluate each borrower's eligibility for a waiver using the existing criteria and inform the borrower as to any need for financial training.

Congress designed FSA direct loans to be a temporary source of credit to enable farmers to start or maintain their operations until they are able to qualify for commercial credit at reasonable rates and terms. Consistent with this purpose, FSA periodically reviews the financial condition of direct loan borrowers to determine whether they are able to graduate to commercial credit. When FSA determines that a borrower is financially capable of graduation, the borrower is required to actively seek and apply for commercial credit to refinance their FSA debt. Failure to do so constitutes non-monetary default.

When a borrower is in non-monetary default for failure to graduate, FSA has allowed FO and OL borrowers to convert their loans to non-program rates and terms to avoid acceleration and foreclosure. Non-program rates and terms generally match those available from commercial lenders and are not subsidized like typical FSA interest rates. As a result, allowing a capable borrower to convert their FO or OL loans to non-program rates and terms effectively eliminates the Government subsidy and achieves an outcome comparable to graduation.

When this policy was originally implemented for FO and OL loans (89 FR 65020, August 8, 2024), the regulation inadvertently did not include the corresponding amendment for EM loans in 7 CFR 765.102. This rule corrects that omission and clarifies that EM loans may be converted to non-program rates and terms when a borrower fails to graduate.

FSA may offer a direct loan applicant a “limited resource rate” when the applicant is unable to develop a feasible farm operating plan at the regular interest rate but can do so, with a positive cash flow, at a lower, limited resource rate. Once a borrower receives a loan with a limited resource rate, the Agency is required to periodically review the borrower's financial condition to determine whether the reduced rate continues to be needed for the operation to remain viable. A “limited resource review” is conducted as part of the broader “operational review” process, which is a structured assessment of an existing direct loan borrower's farming operation to evaluate compliance, efficiency, and accuracy, and requires extensive documentation. An operational review identifies risks and corrects operational gaps, which may result in repayment or restructuring actions when necessary.

In 2025, FSA revised its administrative guidance to clarify that operational reviews are required, for most borrowers, every 3 years. To align the regulatory requirements with this updated guidance, this rule amends 7 CFR 761.105 and 765.51 to change the required frequency of limited resource reviews from every 2 years to every 3 years.

FSA regulations allow the Agency to subordinate its lien position to a commercial lender to facilitate new financing for a mutual customer in certain circumstances. The new loan may be either an FSA-guaranteed loan or an unguaranteed commercial loan. Although many commercial lenders are willing to provide credit to farmers who have existing FSA direct loans, most lender policies and regulatory standards require the lender to obtain a first lien position on the proposed loan security. As a result, borrowers may request that FSA subordinate its lien position in favor of the commercial lender so the new loan can be repaid first upon sale of the loan security. Subordination allows borrowers to access necessary additional credit while maintaining adequate security for the FSA loan through established safeguards that govern the circumstances in which subordinations may be approved.

Existing regulations require borrowers requesting an FSA subordination to a commercial lender to submit a farm operating plan and cash flow budget and require FSA to analyze that cash flow budget with the same level of scrutiny applied to applications for additional direct loan funds. However, the primary consideration in evaluating such a subordination request involves the adequacy of loan collateral given FSA's new lien position after the subordination is executed. Since FSA is not extending new credit, the borrower's repayment schedule for their FSA loan(s) remains the same. Additionally, commercial lenders extending the new credit are required to independently verify the borrower's repayment capacity to service the new debt. Therefore, any additional cash flow analysis by FSA is redundant and unnecessary.

This rule removes the requirement for direct loan borrowers to submit, and for FSA to conduct, a financial feasibility review of a separate cash flow projection and farm operating plan when a direct loan subordination is requested in 7 CFR 761.105 and 765.205. All other requirements for direct loan subordinations will remain unchanged, including, but not limited to, the stipulations that the borrower is not in default on their FSA loan and that FSA has verified that the FLP loan will remain adequately secured after the subordination.

When a borrower requests the release of a portion of loan security “without compensation,” FSA evaluates whether the loan will remain adequately secured. The term “without compensation” refers to situations in which FSA releases its claim on a portion of the collateral without requiring the borrower to make a payment to FSA in exchange for that release. FSA typically appraises the property that will remain as security to verify that its market value is sufficient to secure the remaining balance of the FSA loan.

FSA is removing the requirement to appraise the property being released because its value is not relevant to decisions on releases without compensation. The appraisal or evaluation of remaining collateral will continue, as it provides the basis for determining whether the loan remains adequately secured. Valuation of the property being released will still be required when compensation is involved to ensure that the compensation received by the borrower reflects fair market value. FSA is removing this non-essential appraisal requirement for releases without compensation in 7 CFR 765.305 and 765.351 to reduce administrative burden and appraisal costs.

Section 331D of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1981d) requires FSA to provide loan servicing notifications by certified mail to borrowers who are at least 90 days past due on their installments. However, FSA's implementing regulations at 7 CFR 766.101 require certified mail for primary loan servicing notices for all delinquent borrowers, including those less than 90 days past due.

Because certified mail is more costly and may require additional processing time compared to other delivery methods that also provide confirmation of receipt, FSA is revising 7 CFR 766.101 to require certified mail only when specifically required by statute—that is, for borrowers 90 days or more past due. This change will improve efficiency and reduce costs. Borrowers who are less than 90 days past due will continue to receive timely loan servicing notifications via delivery methods other than certified mail, and no other loan servicing notification requirements are being changed.

In 7 CFR 766.120, FSA provides direct loan borrowers the opportunity to extend an upcoming balloon installment outside of the primary loan servicing process when certain requirements are met, including that the loan be current. FSA has received requests for balloon installment extensions so close to the due date that the Agency is unable to process the transaction before the installment becomes past due. Therefore, to qualify for this quick restructure option, a borrower must now submit the request no later than 30 days prior to the balloon installment due date. Borrowers who submit a request less than 30 days before the installment due date may still be eligible to have the balloon installment restructured; however, they will not be able to use the quick restructure option and will instead be required to use the traditional primary loan servicing procedure, which is a lengthier process.

Establishing the value of proposed real estate security is a key component of the loan approval process. FSA seeks to ensure that the value of the real estate pledged as collateral is at least equal to the loan amount to ensure that adequate proceeds will be available to repay the loan in full if it cannot be repaid through cash flow and the collateral must be liquidated. In many cases, FSA is also required, when additional security is available, to obtain security for direct loans up to 125 percent of the loan amount to account for potential fluctuations in the value of collateral over time. For clarity, collateral refers to the physical asset, such as farmland, pledged for the loan, while security refers to the lender's legal interest or lien on that asset.

Real estate collateral value is typically established through a formal appraisal conducted by a State Certified General Appraiser in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Although FSA employs staff appraisers throughout the country, demand for appraisals exceeds internal capacity, and most appraisals are obtained by contracting with private sector appraisers.

The average real estate appraisal contracted by FSA costs between $2,000 and $3,000 and is completed approximately 30 to 45 days after FSA initiates the request. These costs are paid by FSA and require annual appropriations from Congress. Producers frequently express concerns about the length of time required to receive a direct FO loan for the purchase of real estate partially due to the length of the appraisal process. In some cases, the time between the submission of a loan application and closing may exceed 90 days.

OMB Circular A-129 (Revised), Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables (Office of Management and Budget, August 2025), provides guidance on the valuation of collateral. For many years, this circular has permitted Federal agencies to use a less formal real estate evaluation for smaller loans instead of a full appraisal. Evaluations are conducted by individuals trained to assess real estate value but who are not licensed appraisers. FSA has used evaluations for microloans of up to $50,000 to expedite loan closing and has not experienced increased losses attributable to the use of evaluations instead of appraisals.

OMB updated circular A-129 in 2025 to increase the dollar thresholds at which agencies must obtain a formal appraisal: to over $500,000 for commercial real estate transactions and over $250,000 for business loans. Previously, the circular established a $250,000 threshold for business loans but did not separately address commercial real estate transactions. This rule updates 7 CFR 761.7 to align with the revised OMB guidance, allowing FSA to use real estate evaluations instead of an appraisal for business loans of $250,000 or less and for commercial real estate transactions of $500,000 or less. Applicants and borrowers will retain the right to appeal the Agency's real estate evaluation if it leads to an adverse decision, consistent with appeals procedures applicable to formal real estate appraisals. These changes will allow FSA to reduce the time to loan closing for many direct FO loans and result in cost savings to taxpayers.

This rule also adds definitions related to real estate evaluations in 7 CFR 761.2. In developing definitions for “business loan” and “commercial real estate transaction”, FSA reviewed definitions used by commercial lending regulators, including the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Generally, OLs correspond to business loans and FOs correspond to commercial real estate transactions. The definition of “commercial real estate transaction” clarifies that such transactions include most real estate-secured loans except those secured by property that is primarily residential. As a result, this rule will allow FSA to complete evaluations for new FO loans with a transaction value up to $500,000 for farm real estate containing a residence, as long as the property is not primarily residential. EM loans with shorter terms will generally be processed as business loans, while EM loans with longer terms secured by real estate will generally be processed as commercial real estate transactions. EM loans may either be short-term or long-term depending on the nature of a producer's loss created by a natural disaster. The expanded use of real estate evaluations will not apply to primary loan servicing; appraisals for servicing actions will continue to follow existing policy.

In addition to the definitions discussed above, FSA is also adding related definitions for “appraisal”, “non-residential real property”, “real estate evaluation”, and “real estate-related financial transaction”. These definitions provide necessary context to implement the changes described above.

Federal guaranteed loan programs operate differently from direct lending. With a guaranteed loan, the process typically begins when a farmer or rancher applies for credit through a commercial lender. The lender evaluates the application to determine the borrower's likelihood of success and whether the level of risk aligns with the lender's internal lending policies. When the risk exceeds the lender's acceptable range, but the borrower can demonstrate a feasible operating plan and provide adequate security, the lender may request an FSA guarantee to offset a portion of the risk. This approach ensures access to credit for farmers and ranchers while preventing the Government from competing with commercial lenders through its direct loan program.

FSA partners with a wide array of lenders—including credit unions, commercial banks, and Farm Credit organizations—to deliver Guaranteed Farm Loan Programs. These programs assist applicants who cannot obtain credit without a Federal guarantee. FSA guaranteed loans are intended to facilitate the purchase of agricultural real estate, livestock, equipment, and meet operational needs, among other authorized purposes.

Lenders participating in the Guaranteed Farm Loan Program are assigned one of three status levels—Standard Eligible Lender (SEL), Certified Lender Program (CLP) lender, or Preferred Lender Program (PLP) lender—based on their experience and performance with the guaranteed lending program. As lender status increases, FSA oversight decreases, with PLP lenders (the highest lender status) benefitting from the most streamlined processes that reduce documentation and expedite loan making. Despite these efficiencies, PLP lenders have reported inconsistencies and delays in loan processing across FSA offices in certain cases.

Subsection 339(d)(4)(B) of the CONACT (7 U.S.C.1989(d)(4)(B)) authorizes PLP lenders to make decisions regarding borrower creditworthiness, repayment ability, adequacy of collateral, and operational feasibility. FSA first implemented this authority on February 12, 1999, introducing the PLP status and allowing PLP lenders to use their organization's internal underwriting policies subject to FSA concurrence based on a detailed narrative summary, rather than providing specific financial documentation (64 FR 7358-7403).

To align FSA processes with those used by other Federal agencies, this rule relies on the statutory authority described in the preceding paragraph to permit PLP lenders to certify that they have obtained the specific documentation and performed the necessary analysis to determine that an applicant meets FSA requirements for creditworthiness, the test for credit (which examines whether the applicant is unable to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere without a guarantee), financial feasibility, and collateral adequacy, as specified in 7 CFR 762.120(g) and (h), 762.125, and 762.126. FSA will accept a lender's certification in place of the more detailed narrative summary that has been required since 1999.

Prior to approval of a loan guarantee, FSA will continue to review remaining requirements, including, but not limited to, applicant eligibility (excluding creditworthiness and test for credit), authorized loan purposes, and environmental compliance documentation. This streamlined review is intended to reduce processing times. When environmental requirements have been met, FSA will target approval or rejection of complete applications submitted under this delegated authority within 5 calendar days.

Only PLP lenders may receive delegated authority. All PLP lenders that currently meet and maintain PLP status will receive delegated authority for a period not to exceed the expiration date of their PLP Lender's Agreement. Because PLP status is not automatically renewed, delegated authority will also require renewal. To maintain PLP status and delegated authority, lenders must continue to meet all initial eligibility criteria and any additional criteria established by the Agency.

FSA may revoke PLP status and delegated authority at any time for several reasons, including approving loans that do not meet Agency requirements, failure to maintain eligibility, submission of false information, or poor portfolio performance. FSA will monitor these factors through data analytics and a robust oversight and monitoring process, including reviews of lender loan files. Agency administrative guidance will establish review frequency and monitoring metrics.

Expanding delegated authority to PLP lenders at the time of loan origination will further shift feasibility (cash flow) and security analysis responsibilities to PLP lenders, reducing FSA workload at the time of loan making and improving administrative efficiency. In order to maintain program integrity, FSA will continue to thoroughly review loss claims to ensure that guarantee requirements have been met throughout the loan lifecycle, prior to any loss payment.

Under current regulations, SEL and CLP lenders are prohibited from making additional unguaranteed loans or advances to borrowers without prior written approval from the Agency. PLP lenders may make these loans or advances without Agency approval, provided the lender's process for evaluating such requests is sufficiently documented and incorporated into the lender's Credit Management System (CMS). The CMS must include written requirements agreed to by FSA and the PLP lender for originating and servicing FSA loans. If a PLP lender's CMS does not address this subject, the lender must obtain Agency approval before making additional unguaranteed loans or advances.

These requirements have been used to ensure that any new unguaranteed loan or advance does not adversely affect the collateral position supporting FSA's guaranteed loan or impair the borrower's ability to repay the FSA guaranteed loan. However, commercial lenders are already required by their regulators to conduct a comparable analysis, and FSA rarely disagrees with PLP lender requests for approval. As a result, portions of this process are duplicative, provide minimal benefit, and require considerable FSA staff resources.

With this rule, FSA is updating 7 CFR 762.146 to simplify concurrence requirements for guaranteed lenders when they are making additional unguaranteed loans or advances. All lenders will continue to be required to conduct the same analysis they currently perform before making a subsequent unguaranteed loan or advance. However, lenders will no longer be required to obtain prior written Agency approval. Instead, lenders must document in their loan file that the requirements in 7 CFR 762.146 have been met before making the new unguaranteed loan or advance. FSA will retain its authority to reduce or deny a lender's loss claim due to negligent servicing. If a lender makes an unguaranteed loan or advance after originating an FSA-guaranteed loan and fails to perform the due diligence required by 7 CFR 762.146, FSA may reduce or deny the lender's loss claim if the lack of due diligence contributes to a loss on the guaranteed loan.

In 7 CFR 762.140, FSA requires all guaranteed lenders to conduct annual analyses of their guaranteed loan borrowers, and 7 CFR 762.141 specifies the documentation that lenders must submit to FSA. The specific loans subject to review and the documentation that must be submitted to FSA as evidence of that analysis vary depending on the lender's status within the Guaranteed Loan Programs. While these reviews are important for higher-risk loans or loans that are not performing as agreed, they provide limited benefit for lower-risk, well-performing loans. Commercial lenders devote substantial time to completing each analysis, and FSA staff likewise spend considerable time reviewing them. FSA is revising these requirements to make more efficient use of commercial lender and Agency resources while maintaining appropriate oversight of portfolio performance.

Historically, FSA has required non-PLP lenders to complete an annual analysis for all term loans with aggregate balances over $100,000 and for all revolving lines of credit. With this rule, FSA is increasing the $100,000 threshold to $500,000. As a result, non-PLP lenders will be required to review only term loans with aggregate balances over $500,000, all revolving lines of credit, and any loans that are not performing as agreed.

FSA is also revising which analyses must be submitted to FSA for further Agency review. Non-PLP lenders will now only be required to submit analyses for revolving lines of credit and non-performing loans. Analysis for performing term loans with aggregate balances over $500,000 must still be completed and retained in the lender's files but will no longer be submitted to FSA for further review. The analysis requirements for PLP lenders will continue to be documented in, and governed by, the lender's CMS.

FSA has historically reviewed every loss claim for compliance with program requirements and has denied claims when lenders were found to be out of compliance. Under the updated policy, FSA will continue to conduct these reviews for loss claims to ensure that guarantee requirements have been met from loan obligation through servicing before a loss is paid. This policy change, which simplifies annual analysis requirements for guaranteed loans in 7 CFR 762.141, does not increase risk to the Agency. If a lender fails to conduct a required annual analysis, and the Agency determines that lack of proper borrower monitoring contributes to a guaranteed loan loss, the result may be a reduction or denial of the loss claim.

In 7 CFR 762.127, FSA currently allows all guaranteed lenders to complete a real estate evaluation, in accordance with their internal policies for similar unguaranteed loans, for transactions up to $250,000 instead of obtaining an appraisal. This $250,000 threshold was established prior to the 2025 update to OMB Circular A-129, which permits evaluations for loans up to $500,000, when they are considered commercial real estate transactions, as discussed earlier in this rule.

FSA is increasing the maximum threshold in 7 CFR 762.127 at which a guaranteed lender may rely on a real estate evaluation rather than an appraisal to determine the value of guaranteed loan security. Commercial lending regulators have well-established policies that lenders must follow to determine whether a loan is a business loan or a commercial real estate transaction. Therefore, FSA is not providing additional guidance to guaranteed lenders on this distinction and will continue to require lenders to follow the requirements of their regulator and their own internal policies when completing real estate evaluations, subject to the updated maximum limit of $500,000.

Section 371 of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 2008f) requires recipients of direct and guaranteed loans to obtain at least catastrophic (CAT) risk protection insurance coverage for all crops, if available. CAT coverage represents the lowest level of crop insurance protection. Crop insurance requirements for guaranteed loan applicants are established in 7 CFR 762.123, and similar requirements for direct loan applicants are outlined in 7 CFR 764.108.

In 1996, Section 508(b)(7) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)(7) (1996)) was amended to permit an FLP borrower to forgo the crop insurance purchase requirement under 7 U.S.C. 2008f by waiving eligibility for FSA emergency crop loss assistance. In 2014, however, 7 U.S.C. 1508 was amended to remove the option of executing such a waiver in lieu of obtaining crop insurance. As a result, FSA is updating the regulations for guaranteed loans in 7 CFR 762.123 and for direct loans in 7 CFR 764.108 to remove the option for borrowers to execute a benefits waiver instead of purchasing crop insurance, aligning with statutory requirements under Section 371 of the CONACT. Moving forward, all direct and guaranteed loan borrowers will be required to obtain crop insurance, if available, as a condition of receiving an FSA direct or guaranteed loan.

For each direct loan application, FSA staff complete a written assessment that documents the applicant's financial condition, the farming operation's organizational structure, management strengths and weaknesses, and the applicant's plan to eventually progress to commercial credit. As FSA has implemented new types of direct loans over the past 10-15 years, the Farm Assessment requirements in 7 CFR 761.103 have become redundant and difficult to navigate. With this rule, FSA is simplifying the regulatory text without changing the Farm Assessment requirements.

For example, 7 CFR 761.103 currently includes a separate subsection addressing microloans; however, the Farm Assessment requirements for microloans are almost identical to all other direct loans. Therefore, this rule removes the duplicative language related to microloans and other repetitive Farm Assessment provisions and updates the section for clarity and simplicity.

In 7 CFR 764.103, FSA specifies that an applicant for a direct FO loan who is purchasing a farm is not required to provide additional security if the applicant provides a cash down payment equal to 5 percent or more of the farm's purchase price. Under this provision, the total amount financed, including any FSA debt, does not exceed 95 percent of the purchase price, thereby resulting in slightly less risk to FSA than if the entire purchase was financed. For this reason, the requirement for the applicant to obtain additional security has been waived for applicants providing a cash down payment equal to 5 percent or more of the farm's purchase price.

However, in some cases, the purchase price has exceeded the appraised market value, increasing Agency risk and undermining the intent of the provision. Therefore, FSA is amending § 764.103 to clarify that, to qualify for the waiver of additional security, total financing provided by FSA and all other creditors may not exceed 95 percent of the purchase price or the value of the real estate, whichever is less.

YLs are limited to $10,000 and support agricultural projects conducted through 4-H, Future Farmers of America (FFA), and other similar organizations. Due to the small loan amounts and limited scope of eligible projects, FSA has determined that YLs are not eligible for any balloon installments or flexible repayment terms made for some of the reasons available under other direct loan programs. Flexible repayment terms are specifically prohibited for YLs if the intent is to increase working capital reserves and savings, including reasonable savings for retirement and education, which do not apply to YL activities. However, flexible repayment terms are available for YLs if they are needed to establish a new enterprise, develop a farm, or recover from a disaster or economic reversal. This rule formalizes that policy for YLs in 7 CFR 764.304.

Regulations require that FSA direct OL's be secured by assets with a value at least equal to the loan amount, and FSA is required to obtain a lien on additional security, if it is available, to reach a security margin of 125 percent of the loan amount. A security margin greater than 125 percent of the loan amount may be taken when assets cannot be practicably separated or fragmented.

FSA has long determined that individual livestock within a species cannot be practically distinguished for collateral purposes. Branding and other identification methods such as ear tags typically establish ownership but do not reliably differentiate one animal from another. Consistent with industry practice, FSA therefore takes a lien on the entire herd of the same species when livestock serves as collateral for a loan.

Similarly, machinery and equipment used as collateral for direct OL's are treated as inseparable, and a lien is placed on the borrower's full line of machinery and equipment, consistent with commercial lending practices. FSA's existing loan servicing mechanisms—such as partial lien releases after successful repayment cycles and lien subordination to facilitate commercial credit—ensure borrowers can access equity in their equipment while maintaining adequate loan security. With this rule, FSA provides additional clarity regarding longstanding practices for non-separable collateral in 7 CFR 764.103 and 764.254. While FSA is not explicitly making this clarification in 7 CFR parts 765 or 766, FSA continues to interpret those regulations that provide that it may not be practicable to separate the security in conformity with this clarification of longstanding practices.

In 7 CFR 765.153, FSA outlines the standard order for applying regular loan payments. Agency practice sometimes allows payments to be applied differently, and this rule clarifies that any alternative written agreement between FSA and the borrower regarding the application of proceeds takes precedence over the standard order.

In 7 CFR 765.154, FSA identifies the types of costs and interest that must be satisfied before payments are applied to loan principal. This section currently references “deferred non-capitalized interest,” a category which is no longer relevant because FSA no longer defers non-capitalized interest when servicing direct loans. No active FSA loans in the portfolio contain deferred, non- capitalized interest; therefore, this rule removes the obsolete reference.

Similarly, 7 CFR 761.403, which establishes the order of application for voluntary and involuntary payments when all security has been liquidated and an adjustment debt settlement is in place, also references deferred, non-capitalized interest. This rule removes that obsolete reference as well.

FSA currently allows direct loan security to be released incrementally without compensation as a loan is paid down, provided the loan is in good standing and certain conditions are met. This rule makes two clarifications:

• Borrowers with a loan in active non-monetary default are not eligible for a release of security without compensation.

• Borrowers must have made, in each of the last 3 calendar years, full installments that include principal reduction no later than 90 days after their due dates. This rule clarifies the timing requirements in §§ 765.305 and 765.351.

FSA is required to publish in regulation the notification sent to direct loan borrowers who become 90 days past due, which outlines available loan servicing options and next steps if the borrower chooses not to apply for loan servicing. This rule makes minor clerical updates to forms FSA-2510 and FSA-2510IA in Appendices A and B of subpart C of 7 CFR 766. These updates are administrative and do not change any loan servicing provisions for delinquent borrowers.

Prior to July 3, 1996, the Agency was authorized to offer delinquent borrowers the option to buy out their loans at the net recovery value (the estimated amount a lender expects to recover from the sale of a borrower's collateral after deducting all liquidation-related costs). In 7 CFR 766.206, FSA outlined the requirements for servicing the recapture agreements that resulted from these recovery value buyouts. Because the Agency has not had authority to enter into such agreements since 1996, these regulatory provisions are, and have been, obsolete. Therefore, FSA is removing 7 CFR 766.206.

If a borrower receives unauthorized assistance (a loan, or a portion of a loan, provided to a borrower who was not eligible to receive it) due to submission of inaccurate information or Agency error, the borrower is generally required to repay the amount of unauthorized assistance within 90 days of Agency notification. If the borrower is unable to repay the unauthorized amount and did not provide false information to the Agency, FSA may convert the loan to non-program rates and terms to avoid acceleration and foreclosure. This rule clarifies that when a borrower repays a portion, but not all, of the unauthorized amount, the remaining unauthorized portion of the loan may still be converted to non-program rates and terms if all applicable requirements are met. Accordingly, any portion of unauthorized assistance that the borrower is unable to repay may be converted to non-program rates and terms in 7 CFR 766.253.

Section 366 of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 2008a) allows FSA to provide equitable relief to direct loan borrowers who acted in good faith but became out of compliance with their loan agreements through reliance on Agency action, inaction, or advice. This rule makes a minor clarification to 7 CFR 768.1.

FSA is removing 7 CFR part 773, Special Apple Loan Program, which was established to assist orchardists who produced apples on not less than 10 acres for sale in 1999 and 2000. FSA is also removing 7 CFR part 774, Emergency Loan for Seed Producers Program, which was created to assist seed producers who had contracts with AgriBiotech in 1999 and were adversely affected by the company's bankruptcy. These programs are no longer authorized, and FSA has no remaining outstanding loans under these parts.

This rule amends the definition of “adequate security” in § 761.2 to clarify that the term applies to both direct and guaranteed loans.

In 7 CFR 761.1, FSA describes how authority for administering the Farm Loan Programs is delegated from the FSA Administrator to the FSA Deputy Administrator for Farm Loan Programs and, in turn, how the Deputy Administrator further delegates authority to employees at the FSA State and County Offices. In 2024, FSA created a new position at the State Office level—the Deputy State Executive Director—which was not included in these existing delegations of authority. Therefore, this rule amends the regulations to incorporate this new position and to account for any additional positions the Agency may establish or to which the FSA Administrator may decide to delegate authority to in the future. These updates apply to the delegations of authority for FSA employees in 7 CFR 761.1.

FSA's regulations for documenting compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) were formerly located in 7 CFR 799, which USDA rescinded in the rule “National Environmental Policy Act” (90 FR 29632, July 3, 2025). That rule consolidated all USDA NEPA regulations in 7 CFR part 1b. This rule removes obsolete references to 7 CFR 799 and replaces them with references to 7 CFR part 1b accordingly.

FSA has historically used the term “chattel” to describe non-real estate assets pledged as security. Because most commercial lenders now use the term “personal property,” this rule replaces all references to “chattel” with “personal property.”

This rule makes minor revisions to several definitions in 7 CFR 761.2 related to real estate valuation. Specifically, this rule clarifies that an “Administrative appraisal review” does not assess compliance with USPAP Standards 3 and 4, updates the definition of “Market value” to add context on factors that influence value, and makes a clerical correction to the definition of “Potential liquidation value”.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) provides that the notice and comment and 30-day delay in the effective date provisions of that Act do not apply when the rule involves specified actions, including matters related to loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This rule governs a program for loans and therefore falls within that exemption.

This rule is exempt from the regulatory analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The requirements for the regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 are specifically tied to the requirement for a proposed rule by section 553 of the APA or any other law; in addition, the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 601 is tied to the publication of a proposed rule. The exemption under section 553 for matters related to loans extends to the regulatory analysis requirement for this rule.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule does not meet the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Under 5 U.S.C. 808(2), an agency may make a rule effective immediately upon publication if it finds good cause. USDA finds good cause because this rule relates to loans and delaying its effective date would postpone benefits to American farmers and ranchers. Therefore, USDA is not required to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. Accordingly, this rule is effective on October 1, 2026.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Further, Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both the costs and benefits of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” announced the Administration policy to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America's economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen and to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. In line with these Executive Order requirements, the Agency has chosen this regulatory approach to maximize benefits and minimize burdens on American producers. This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it does not impose any more than de minimis regulatory costs.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this rule as “not significant” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed this rule and an analysis of costs and benefits is not required under either Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563.

The environmental impacts have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and the USDA regulation for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 1b).

The actions in this rule fall within the Farm Loan Programs categorical exclusion at 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(1)(i). No Extraordinary Circumstances (7 CFR 1b.3(f)) exist because this rule includes only administrative, procedural, and program-delivery updates. As such, these regulatory updates do not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually or cumulatively. Therefore, FSA will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this rule and, consistent with 7 CFR 1b.3(g), this document serves as the programmatic finding of applicability and no extraordinary circumstance (FANEC). No further environmental compliance documentation is required for implementation.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FSA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that required Tribal consultation at this time. If a Tribe requests consultation in the future, FSA's Federal Preservation Officer will work with the Office of Tribal Relations, as needed, to ensure meaningful consultation is provided.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), this rule does not change the information collection approved by OMB under control numbers:

• 0560-0155, Guaranteed Farm Loan Programs, OMB Expiration Date of November 2026;

• 0560-0233, Farm Loan Programs—Direct Loan Servicing, OMB Expiration Date of November 2027;

• 0560-0236, Farm Loan Programs—Direct Loan Servicing, OMB Expiration Date of August 2026 (the 60-day comment period for the information collection request renewal was published on April 2, 2026 at 91 FR 16628 and is pending OMB approval);

• 0560-0237, Farm Loan Programs—Direct Loan Making, OMB Expiration Date of February 2029;

• 0560-0238, Farm Loan Programs—General Program Administration, OMB Expiration Date of October 2026; and

• 0560-0317, Online Loan Application, OMB Expiration Date of November 2026.

No new information will be collected through this rule.

FSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

The title and number of the Federal assistance programs, as found in the Assistance Listing, to which this rule applies are:

For the reasons discussed above, FSA amends the regulations in 7 CFR parts 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 768, 770, 772, 773, and 774 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes the Class E airspace at the affected airport that is no longer needed.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2026-7824 in the Federal Register (91 FR 42684; July 10, 2026) proposing to revoke the Class E airspace at Point Pleasant, WV. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by removing the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface at Mason County Airport, Point Pleasant, West Virginia due to the cancellation of the instrument procedures and the airspace no longer being required.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings” (March 10, 2025); and (3) is expected to result in, at most, de minimis costs from compliance with applicable operating requirements or minor flight rerouting for operators choosing to navigate around the controlled airspace. Since these amendments are routine and the expected impact to operators is de minimis, the FAA certifies that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” Paragraph B-2.5(a). This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

If the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) finds, upon his own initiative or at the request of an appropriate Federal or State law enforcement official, that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements are necessary to carry out the purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)  1 or to prevent evasions thereof, the Secretary may issue a Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) requiring any domestic financial institution or group of domestic financial institutions, or any domestic nonfinancial trade or business or group of domestic nonfinancial trades or businesses, in a geographic area to obtain such information as the Secretary may describe in such GTO concerning any transaction in which such financial institution or nonfinancial trade or business is involved in for the payment, receipt, or transfer of funds (as the Secretary may describe in such GTO), and concerning any other person participating in such transaction. 2 For any such transaction, the Secretary may require the financial institution or nonfinancial trade or business to maintain a record and/or file a report in the manner and to the extent specified. 3 The maximum effective period for a GTO is 180 days unless renewed. 4 The authority of the Secretary to issue a GTO has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN (Director). 5

The Director finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that the additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements set forth in the GTO contained in this document (the “Order”) are necessary to carry out the purposes of the BSA or to prevent evasions thereof. This action is being taken in furtherance of Treasury's efforts to combat illicit finance by drug cartels and other illicit actors along the southwest border of United States. The Order does not alter any existing BSA obligation of a Covered Business (as defined in the Order), except as otherwise noted in the Order itself. Thus, for example, a Covered Business must continue to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) for transactions in currency above $10,000 and Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) where appropriate and in accordance with the BSA and applicable regulations. Although the dollar thresholds for filing SARs in the SAR regulation applicable to Covered Businesses remains the same (as low as $2,000), 6 FinCEN encourages the voluntary filing of SARs where appropriate to report transactions conducted to evade the $1,000 reporting threshold imposed by the Order.

1. For purposes of this Order, the term “Covered Business” means a money services business, as defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(ff), located in the Covered Geographic Area, except, for the period during which an applicable injunction remains in force, any money services business to which the government is enjoined by court order from applying the Geographic Targeting Order published by FinCEN on March 14, 2025 (90 FR 12106).

2. For purposes of this Order, a “Covered Transaction” means each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency or other payment or transfer, by, through, or to the Covered Business which involves a transaction in currency, of $1,000 or more, but not more than $10,000.

3. For purposes of this Order, a “Covered Geographic Area” means:

a. The following zip codes in Texas:

i. 78521, 78520, 78526, 78550, 78586, 78552, 78566, 78559, 78578, 78593, 78583, 78575, 78597, 78592, 78535, 78567, 78522, 78523, 78553, 78551, and 78568 associated with Cameron County, Texas;

ii. 79936, 79938, 79928, 79912, 79924, 79907, 79927, 79925, 79915, 79904, 79932, 79934, 79930, 79905, 79902, 79935, 79903, 79849, 79835, 79911, 79901, 79836, 79821, 79922, 79906, 79838, 79908, 79916, 79853, 79918, 79920, 79923, 79931, 79913, 79914, 79929, 79917, 79996, 79937, 79926, 79995, 79968, 79940, 79980, 79999, 79958, 79960, 79951, 79947, 79943, 79953, 79954, 79941, 79942, 79946, 79955, 79945, 79950, 79952, 79948, 79949, 79944, 79997, 79998, 88513, 88565, 88590, 88587, 79961, 79976, 79978, 88588, 88540, 88554, 88575, 88562, 88515, 88563, 88512, 88561, 88569, 88511, 88567, 88514, 88526, 88570, 88572, 88579, 88533, 88577, 88530, 88578, 88525, 88574, 88520, 88523, 88580, 88571, 88517, 88519, 88566, 88573, 88583, 88584, 88585, 88586, 88524, 88550, 88595, 88518, 88568, 88521, 88528, 88529, 88510, 88589, 88527, 88560, 88545, 88536, 88558, 88559, 88544, 88576, 88531, 88532, 88553, 88547, 88555, 88557, 88542, 88549, 88548, 88541, 88546, 88539, 88543, 88556, 88534, 88538, 88535, 88581, 88582, and 79910 associated with El Paso County, Texas;

iii. 78542, 78577, 78572, 78504, 78574, 78501, 78541, 78537, 78573, 78589, 78596, 78539, 78599, 78516, 78570, 78503, 78576, 78557, 78538, 78543, 78595, 78560, 78562, 78579, 78558, 78549, 78563, 78565, 78540, 78505, and 78502 associated with Hidalgo County, Texas;

iv. 78852, 78877, 78860, and 78853 associated with Maverick County, Texas; and

v. 78046, 78045, 78041, 78043, 78040, 78344, 78044, 78369, 78371, and 78042 associated with Webb County, Texas;  7

b. The following zip codes in New Mexico:

i. 87121, 87158, 87192, 87153, 87191, 87181, 87131, 87190, 87176, 87154, 87194, 87197, 87125, 87198, 87196, 87103, 87119, 87115, 87185, 87199, 87184, 87195, 87193, 87101, 87107, 87114, 87120, 87111, 87105, 87112, 87123, 87110, 87109, 87108, 87187, 87102, 87122, 87113, 87104, 87116, 87151, 87106, 87008, 87022, 87117, 87047, and 87059 associated with Bernalillo County, New Mexico;

ii. 88021, 88024, 88027, 88081, 88032, 88033, 87936, 87937, 88044, 88003, 88004, 88001, 88006, 88013, 88007, 88005, 88011, 88012, 88046, 88047, 88048, 88052, 88054, 87940, 87941, 88058, 88008, 88063, 88072, and 88002 associated with Dona Ana County, New Mexico; and

iii. 87410, 87412, 87413, 87401, 87402, 87499, 87415, 87416, 87417, 87418, 87037, 87419, 87455, 87461, 87364, 87420, and 87421 associated with San Juan County, New Mexico

4. All terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning set forth in part 1010 of chapter X of subtitle B of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

5. Except as otherwise set forth in this Order, if the Covered Business is involved in a Covered Transaction, then the Covered Business shall report the Covered Transaction to FinCEN on a Currency Transaction Report within 30 days following the day on which the Covered Transaction occurred. In the case of the U.S. Postal Service, the obligation contained in the preceding sentence shall not apply to payments or transfers made solely in connection with the purchase of postage or philatelic products.

6. Each report filed pursuant to this Order must be: (a) completed in accordance with the terms of this Order and the Currency Transaction Report instructions (when those terms and those instructions conflict, the terms of this Order prevail); and (b) e-filed though the BSA E-Filing System. 8

7. Before concluding a Covered Transaction, the Covered Business must comply with the identification requirements set forth at 31 CFR 1010.312, including the requirement that the specific identifying information ( e.g., the account number of the credit card, the driver's license number) used in verifying the identity of the customer shall be recorded on the Currency Transaction Report, and the mere notation of “known customer” or “bank signature card on file” on the report is prohibited. For purposes of this requirement, the Covered Business need not identify employees of armored car services.

8. The Covered Business is not required to file a report otherwise required under this Order on a Covered Transaction between the Covered Business and a commercial bank.

9. Part IV of the Currency Transaction Report shall contain the following information in Field 45: “MSB0926GTO”.

The terms of this Order are effective beginning September 3, 2026, and ending on March 1, 2027. The compliance date for persons that were not Covered Businesses under the Geographic Targeting Order published by FinCEN on March 10, 2026 (91 FR 11456) is October 3, 2026.

The Covered Business must: (a) retain all reports filed to comply with this Order and any other records relating to compliance with this Order for a period of five years from the last day that this Order is effective (including any renewals of this Order); (b) store all such records in a manner accessible within a reasonable period of time; and (c) make such records available to FinCEN, or any other appropriate law enforcement or regulatory agency, upon request, in accordance with applicable law.

Nothing in this Order otherwise modifies or affects any provision of the BSA or the regulations implementing the BSA to the extent not expressly stated herein.

This Order is being publicly issued, and its terms are not confidential.

The Covered Business must supervise, and is responsible for, compliance by each of its officers, directors, employees, and agents with the terms of this Order. The Covered Business must transmit this Order to each of its agents located in the Covered Geographic Area. The Covered Business must also transmit this Order to its Chief Executive Officer or other similarly acting manager.

The Covered Business, and any of its officers, directors, employees, and agents, may be liable, without limitation, for civil or criminal penalties for violating any of the terms of this Order.

Any judicial determination that any provision of this Order is invalid shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this Order, and each other provision shall thereafter remain in full force and effect. A copy of this Order carries the full force and effect of an original signed Order.

The collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act contained in this Order has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB control number 1506-0056. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.

All questions about the Order should be directed to FinCEN at https://www.fincen.gov/contact.

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule under the authority in (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because CSX Transportation railroad bridge, that once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.371(b), was converted to a fixed bridge in August 2026. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and shall be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulatory action is inconsequential to the industry and does not have any impact on the public.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The bridge has been converted to a fixed bridge, and this rule merely requires an administrative change to the Federal Register , in order to remove a regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary. The modification has already taken place, and the removal of the regulation will not affect mariners currently operating on this waterway. Therefore, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.

The CSX Transportation railroad bridge (Savannah River) was converted to a fixed bridge in August 2026. The elimination of this drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation, 33 CFR 117.371(b), that pertains to the former drawbridge.

The purpose of this rule is to remove the paragraph of 33 CFR 117.371 that refers to the CSX Transportation railroad bridge at mile 60.9, from the Code of Federal Regulations since it governs a drawbridge that is no longer able to be opened.

The Coast Guard is removing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.371 related to the draw operations for CSX Transportation railroad bridge since it is no longer a drawbridge. The change removes the paragraph of the regulation governing the CSX Transportation railroad bridge since the bridge has been converted to a fixed bridge. This Final Rule seeks to update the Code of Federal Regulations by removing language that governs the operation of the CSX Transportation railroad bridge, which is no longer a drawbridge. This change does not affect waterway or land traffic. This change does not affect, nor does it alter the operating schedules in 33 CFR 117.371 that govern the remaining active drawbridges on the Savannah River.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders.

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce a Safety Zone regulation in 33 CFR 165.932 for the Chicago Masters' Big Shoulders 5K and 2.5K Open Water Swim from 7 a.m. to Noon on Saturday, September 12, 2026. The regulation for the safety zone, Ohio Street Beach Swim Course, Lake Michigan, Chicago Harbor, Chicago, IL in §  165.932, specifies the location of the safety zone for this event.

In accordance with the general regulations in §  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Lake Michigan or his or her designated representative.

This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP, Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative. Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the COTP, Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The COTP Lake Michigan may be reached by contacting the Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan Command Center at (833) 900-2247. An on-scene designated representative may be reached via VHF-FM Channel 16.

Entities potentially affected by this action are those involved with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels ( e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) and renewable fuels ( e.g., ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and biogas). Potentially affected categories include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your entity would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 80. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Throughout this document, the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

Under existing RFS regulations at 40 CFR 80.1451(f)(1)(i)(A), obligated parties, including refiners and importers of transportation fuel, with renewable volume obligations (RVOs) must retire credits (Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs)) and submit annual compliance demonstration reports to the EPA for each calendar year by the latest of:

• March 31 of the subsequent calendar year.

• The next quarterly reporting deadline after the date the subsequent compliance year's renewable fuel standards become effective.

• The next quarterly reporting deadline after the annual compliance reporting deadline for the prior compliance year.

For the 2025 compliance year, this deadline was originally established as September 1, 2026, which is the next quarterly reporting deadline after the 2026 RFS standards became effective. 1 In this final rule, the EPA is extending the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline to October 1, 2026, for the reasons discussed herein.

The EPA is extending the compliance deadline to allow obligated parties and market participants additional time to comply with the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline, particularly in light of the recent issuance of small refinery exemption (SRE) decisions for the 2025 compliance year. The EPA first announced and applied the Agency's current approach to evaluating SRE petitions on August 22, 2025, when the Agency issued decisions on 175 SRE petitions from 38 refineries spanning the 2016-2024 compliance years. 2 On November 7, 2025, 3 and August 3, 2026, 4 the EPA again applied the Agency's current approach to evaluating SRE petitions when the Agency issued decisions on 22 SRE petitions from 12 refineries spanning the 2021-2024 compliance years. On August 31, 2026, the EPA issued decisions on 34 SRE petitions for the 2025 compliance year. 5 In this final rule, the EPA is providing additional time for these small refineries, other obligated parties, and other market participants to carry out and adjust their compliance strategies upon issuance of the Agency's decisions on the 2025 SRE petitions ahead of the otherwise imminent 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline of September 1, 2026. The EPA is extending the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline from September 1, 2026, to October 1, 2026, to provide the necessary time to RFS program participants due to the issuance of the 2025 SRE decisions. Note that this extension will not affect the 2025 attestation engagement deadline (June 1, 2027) or the 2026 compliance reporting deadline (March 31, 2027).

This extension of the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline ensures that all small refineries are informed as to their ultimate 2025 RFS obligations and provides obligated parties with sufficient time to carry out and adjust their compliance strategies, taking into account the EPA's decisions on the 2025 SRE petitions, thereby preventing unnecessary burden on obligated parties to prepare, submit, and then possibly retract and revise their 2025 RFS compliance reports. The EPA is extending the deadline for all obligated parties because the Agency's decisions on SRE petitions impact the price and availability of RINs for all obligated parties, not just small refineries. This approach is consistent with the EPA's prior rules extending RFS compliance reporting deadlines  6 and consistent with case law of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 7

Absent this EPA action to extend the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline, all obligated parties—including small refineries—would be required to comply with their 2025 RVOs by September 1, 2026. The EPA finds that there is insufficient time for small refineries, and other obligated parties, to adjust their compliance strategies, and for the RIN market to react to these SRE decisions, prior to the otherwise imminent 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline of September 1, 2026. Thus, the extension of the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline finalized in this action will provide all obligated parties—including small refineries—with more time to develop their compliance strategies than they would otherwise be afforded.

Finally, the EPA notes that this action cannot impact the amount of renewable fuel that is produced and used in 2025 as that year is entirely in the past, and all renewable fuel production and use has already occurred. Thus, the EPA does not anticipate any negative impacts on the renewable fuel industry as a result of this action.

The EPA is issuing this final rule without prior proposal and public comment because the Agency finds that the good cause exemption from the notice and comment rulemaking requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) applies in this action. APA section 553(b)(B), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons thereof in the rule issued) that notice and comment public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment.

The EPA has determined that there is good cause for promulgating this final rule without prior proposal and opportunity for comment. Notice and comment procedures are impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as they would not allow for implementation of this action prior to the existing 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline of September 1, 2026, which would negatively impact small refineries that only recently received SRE decisions for the 2025 compliance year, as well as other obligated parties that might adjust their compliance strategies as a result of additional RINs becoming available in the market. As described in section I of this preamble, the EPA has only recently issued decisions on the SRE petitions for the 2025 compliance year, just prior to the otherwise imminent 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline of September 1, 2026. Without this final rule, small refineries and other obligated parties would be required to comply with their 2025 RFS obligations without time to adjust compliance strategies, which could result in unnecessary RIN purchases, retirements, trades, or sales. Therefore, the EPA is promulgating this final rule without prior proposal and opportunity for comment to expeditiously change the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline before small refineries and other obligated parties would otherwise have to retire RINs to comply with their 2025 RFS obligations.

The EPA also finds that prior notice and comment is unnecessary because the Agency is making only targeted changes to a compliance date in response to immediate concerns raised by stakeholders, including obligated parties subject to the 2025 RFS standards. 8 The EPA is modifying the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline in a manner that does not disrupt the 2026 RFS compliance reporting deadline and thus provides sufficient time between compliance deadlines for both the Agency and obligated parties to manage compliance obligations. This action also avoids risking interim noncompliance proceedings that could occur without promulgation of this action. This action will also not impact the use of renewable fuel under the RFS program, as 2025 is in the past and the amount of renewable fuel used in that year cannot be changed. Thus, the EPA does not anticipate any impact on renewable fuel producers or the 2025 volumes overall. This targeted action provides obligated parties with the additional time needed to conduct the necessary RIN transactions and compliance decisions prior to the modified 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline.

In addition, the EPA finds that prior notice and comment would be impracticable given the applicable compliance deadlines and the timeline involved in completing such procedures. The EPA has determined through ongoing communications with stakeholders and review of the relevant regulatory language, that there are legitimate barriers to compliance with the September 1, 2026, deadline. As a result, the EPA is making only targeted changes to the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline in this action to provide the immediate relief necessary to avoid unnecessary and problematic situations of obligated parties expending time and resources attempting to comply in short amounts of time. Prior notice and comment would be impracticable given the purpose of this targeted action, which is to provide the immediate extension required to address the problems identified above.

The EPA is also determining there is good cause to make this final rule immediately operational upon signature. When an agency grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. Here, the regulatory amendments to 40 CFR part 80 relieve a restriction by extending the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline ahead of the otherwise imminent deadline of September 1, 2026, thus providing obligated parties with additional time to demonstrate compliance with their 2025 RFS obligations. Because the rule revisions relieve a restriction and advance notice is not needed, this final rule is immediately operational upon signature.

Additionally, APA section 553(d), 5 U.S.C. 553(d), generally provides that rules may not take effect until 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register . The purpose of this provision is to “give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.”  9 However, when an agency grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. Thus, APA section 553(d)(1) allows for an effective date less than 30 days after publication for any rule that “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.”  10 Here, as discussed above, the regulatory amendments to 40 CFR part 80 relieve a restriction by extending the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline ahead of the otherwise imminent deadline of September 1, 2026, thus providing obligated parties with additional time to demonstrate compliance with their 2025 RFS obligations.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.

This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. This final rule provides burden reduction by extending the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline, thereby preventing unnecessary burden on obligated parties to prepare, submit, and then possibly retract and revise their 2025 RFS compliance reports.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection activities related to this final rule and has assigned the following OMB control numbers 2060-0725, 2060-0740, and 2060-0749. This action extends the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline and would not impose new or different reporting requirements on regulated parties than already exist for the RFS program.

This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the EPA has invoked the APA “good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The EPA's discussion of the good cause finding for this rule, including the basis for that finding, is discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments. Requirements for the private sector do not exceed $100 million in any one year.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action will be implemented at the Federal level and affects transportation fuel refiners, blenders, marketers, distributors, importers, exporters, and renewable fuel producers and importers. Tribal governments would be affected only to the extent they produce, purchase, and use regulated fuels. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the Agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it extends the 2025 RFS compliance reporting deadline and does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve technical standards.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Statutory authority for this action comes from sections 114, 203-05, 208, 211, and 301 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7522-24, 7542, 7545, and 7601.

Statutory authority for the rulemaking procedures followed in this action is provided by APA section 553(b)(B), 5 U.S.C. 53(b)(B) (good cause exception to notice-and-comment rulemaking), and statutory authority for making this action immediately effective is provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). As explained in section II of this preamble, the EPA finds good cause to forgo prior notice and comment because such procedures are unnecessary and impracticable under the circumstances detailed in section II of this preamble.

CAA section 307(b)(1) governs judicial review of final actions by the EPA. This section generally provides that petitions for review of final actions that are nationally applicable must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and petitions for judicial review of actions that are locally or regionally applicable must be filed in the appropriate regional circuit. However, CAA section 307(b)(1) also provides that petitions for judicial review of a final action that is locally or regionally applicable must be filed in the D.C. Circuit when “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”

This action is nationally applicable because it amends nationally applicable regulations promulgated by the Administrator and codified at 40 CFR part 80. Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by November 3, 2026. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final action may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 80 as follows:

Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)), we are required to make a finding on whether or not a petitioned action is warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition that we have determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (“12-month finding”). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded by other listing activity. We must publish a notification of these 12-month findings in the Federal Register .

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and our regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines “species” as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)) 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 (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following 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.

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 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 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 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.

Both definitions of endangered species and threatened species include not only the phrase “throughout all,” but also the phrase “or a significant portion of its range.” Beginning in 2001, a number of judicial opinions addressed our interpretation of the phrase “or a significant portion of its range” (the SPR phrase) in the statutory definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” In Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) regarding the flat-tailed horned lizard, the court held that the interpretation of the SPR phrase that we had applied in analyzing the status of the flat-tailed horned lizard was unacceptable because it would allow for a species to warrant listing throughout a significant portion of a species' range only when the species “is in danger of extinction everywhere” (id. at 1141). The court held that the SPR phrase must be given independent meaning from the “throughout all” phrase to avoid making the SPR phrase in the statute superfluous.

In an attempt to address the judicial opinions calling into question our approach to evaluating whether a species was endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the Services published a “Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase `Significant Portion of Its Range' in the Endangered Species Act's Definition of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (hereafter “2014 SPR Policy;” 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). The notice of the draft policy provides more detail about litigation before 2014 regarding the phrase (76 FR 76987, Dec. 9, 2011). The 2014 SPR Policy included four elements:

(1) Consequence—that the consequence of determining that a species warrants listing based on its status in a significant portion of its range is to list the species throughout all of its range;

(2) Significance—a definition of the term “significant”;

(3) Range—that the species' “range” is the current range of the species; and

(4) Distinct population segment (DPS)—that, if a [vertebrate] species is endangered or threatened in an SPR, and the population in that SPR is a DPS, the Service will list just the DPS.

Subsequently, two district courts vacated the definition of “significant” contained in the 2014 SPR Policy ( Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) (“ CBD v. Jewell” ) and Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (“ Desert Survivors” )). The courts found that the definition in the 2014 SPR Policy set too high a threshold and rendered the SPR language in the statute superfluous, failing to give it independent meaning from the “throughout all” phrase. In 2020, another court ( Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (“ Everson” )) also vacated the specific aspect of the 2014 SPR Policy under which, “if the Services determine that a species is threatened throughout all of its range, the Services will not analyze whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of its range” (id. at 98). This was an extension of the definition of “significant,” which required a stepwise process in which we only considered whether a species may be endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range when the species was not endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. In an extension of the earlier rulings from CBD v. Jewell and Desert Survivors, the court found that this aspect of the definition of the 2014 SPR Policy was not only inconsistent with the statute because it “rendered the `endangered in a significant portion of its range' basis for listing superfluous,” but was also “inconsistent with ESA principles” and “not a logical outgrowth from the draft policy.” Under this ruling, if we find a species is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, we must evaluate whether the species is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, even in cases where we have determined that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout all of its range. The remaining three elements of the 2014 SPR Policy remain intact.

For each species below, we address why they are not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. For some species, we discuss throughout all of the range first (endangered then threatened classification) and then discuss significant portion of the range. For other species we explain why not in danger of extinction (throughout all or a significant portion of its range) and then why not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (throughout all or a significant portion of its range).

When assessing whether a species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, we address two questions because we must determine 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 or likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout that portion. We may 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.

In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Big Bar hesperian, Chesapeake logperch, Kirtland's snake, orangefin madtom, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, tall western penstemon, and Wintu sideband meet the Act's definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species,” we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats. We reviewed the petitions, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information for these species. Our evaluation may include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private entities; and other members of the public.

In accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this document announces the not-warranted findings on petitions to list the nine species. We have also elected to include brief summaries of the analyses on which these findings are based. We provide the full analyses, including the reasons and data on which the findings are based, in the decisional files for the Big Bar hesperian, Chesapeake logperch, Kirtland's snake, orangefin madtom, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, tall western penstemon, and Wintu sideband. Below, we describe the documents containing these analyses.

The species assessment forms for the Big Bar hesperian, Chesapeake logperch, Kirtland's snake, orangefin madtom, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, tall western penstemon, and Wintu sideband each contain more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing factors, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of why we determined that these species do not meet the Act's definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” To inform our status review, we completed a species status assessment (SSA) report for the Big Bar hesperian, Chesapeake logperch, Kirtland's snake, orangefin madtom, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, tall western penstemon, and Wintu sideband. The SSA reports contain a thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, current status, and projected future status for these species. This supporting information can be found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES , above).

On March 13, 2008, we received a petition to list 29 species and subspecies of mollusks in the Pacific Northwest as threatened or endangered species under the Act. The petitioners included the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Conservation Northwest, the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, and Oregon Wild. We issued a 90-day finding on October 5, 2011, (76 FR 61826), stating that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing 26 of the mollusk species or subspecies may be warranted. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the March 13, 2008, petition to list the Big Bar hesperian, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, and Wintu sideband (five terrestrial mollusks).

The five terrestrial mollusks are small land-dwelling narrowly endemic snails typically much less than 1.1 inches (30 millimeters) in diameter and are found in Shasta, Siskiyou, Trinity, and Humboldt Counties, California. The landscape in which they occur is part of the Klamath Mountains/Southern Cascades ecoregion, which is ecologically, topographically, and geographically diverse. This diversity provides localized variability in vegetation (type and cover) and climate (temperature and moisture). The general habitat needs of the five terrestrial mollusks include use and selection of habitat that conserves moisture and avoids desiccation and provides for temperature regulation, availability of vegetation/fungi/detritus for foraging, calcium availability for shell development, and refuge or sheltering habitat to avoid hot, dry, or cold conditions. This includes humid habitats associated with limestone outcrops or caves, rocky outcrops, talus slopes, or boulder piles with interstitial spaces, areas that contain leaf litter and woody debris such as downed limbs or logs, or areas that have a shrub or forest overstory to provide shade. The Big Bar hesperian and Shasta hesperian are closely associated with riparian areas and are found within a short distance of the edge of streams, springs, and seeps in montane hardwood-conifer forests where soils are permanently moist. The Shasta chaparral is also associated with these wetted habitats but also occurs in the nonwetted habitats as described above.

Populations of terrestrial snails within the region are thought to be relicts of the late Pleistocene epoch when the local climate conditions were much cooler and more mesic than current conditions and the five terrestrial mollusks have gone through many cycles of isolation followed by connectivity over millennia or longer periods of time. Despite the warmer and dryer climatic conditions where they are now found, the five terrestrial mollusks have adopted behaviors to maintain moisture or to seek out cooler moist habitat to carry out their life history requirements. This includes being active during cooler more moist periods of the day and year such as at night or during the fall and spring and seeking shelter, hibernating, or estivating during the day, winter, or summer.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Big Bar hesperian, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, and Wintu sideband, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing the threats facing the five terrestrial mollusks. In our analysis, we identified the following threats facing the five terrestrial mollusks: the effects of increasing temperatures and prolonged drought; the effects of fire; the impacts associated with small population size and limited gene flow; limestone and gold mining; grazing; timber harvest; road construction; urbanization; recreation activities and recreation facility development; off-road vehicle activity; nonnative species; pesticide use; chemical spills; unauthorized marijuana cultivation; fire retardant use; over collection; and the potential raising of Shasta Dam and resulting inundation of habitat. We identified the primary threats affecting the biological status of the five terrestrial mollusks as (1) the effects of prolonged drought conditions and increasing temperatures, and (2) the effects of severe wildfire events that are associated with habitat loss or destruction. Although the remaining threats (either individually or cumulatively) may impact individuals at the local level, the best scientific and commercial data available did not indicate that these threats are having or will have population level impacts due to their limited rangewide prevalence or level of impact on the five terrestrial mollusks.

To determine whether the Big Bar hesperian, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, and Wintu sideband are in danger of extinction throughout all of their ranges, we reviewed the threats to each of the five terrestrial mollusks, their responses to those threats (including any cumulative effect of the threats), and any amelioration of the threats associated with regulatory or conservation measures. Several factors assist in limiting the impact of the two primary threats impacting the five terrestrial mollusks. This includes the ecological, topographical, and geological diversity of the landscape which provides a mosaic of environmental conditions and resulting burn patterns (severity and intensity) across the five terrestrial mollusks' ranges; and the life history and behavioral adaptations of the five terrestrial mollusks to avoid activity during periods most associated and influenced by the two primary threats.

Currently, each of the five terrestrial mollusks occupies areas roughly the size of their respective historical ranges and our analysis identified that all populations are in either high or moderate condition (based on habitat condition and occurrence distribution). In addition, the five terrestrial mollusks likely have a wide breadth of environmental diversity within and among their populations and so can be characterized as having representation across a breadth of subwatersheds. Based on topographical and geographical conditions of the landscape, habitat used, and behavioral adaptations and life history and behavioral strategies that assist them in maintaining moisture (aestivation, activity periods, habitat use), the five terrestrial mollusks are currently able to limit the negative impacts from the effects of drought and increasing temperatures and severe wildfire events. As a result, we found that in the near term, all five terrestrial mollusks can withstand stochastic disturbances, maintain their ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions, and have sufficient number and distributions of populations to withstand catastrophic events. Therefore, we conclude that the Big Bar hesperian, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, and Wintu sideband are not in danger of extinction throughout all of their respective ranges.

Therefore, we proceeded with determining whether the five terrestrial mollusks are likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of their ranges. For our analysis of future conditions, we chose to examine the future conditions out to approximately mid-century (2040-2069) as well as end-of-century (2070-2099) because those timeframes encompass the best scientific and commercial data available for future projections of the two primary threats acting on the species and for drawing reliable conclusions about the response of the five terrestrial mollusks to these threats. Despite a potential future decrease in resiliency due to drought and severe wildfire, we expect these future impacts will likely be limited to the loss of individuals or some smaller populations, and the overall viability of these species is not likely to be affected. As previously discussed, the behavioral flexibility and biological adaptations of these five species will likely continue to protect them from the effects of future threats, as their life history strategies support their ability to adapt to varying environmental conditions. In addition, the mollusks' use of sheltered habitats (deep within caves and interstitial spaces within rocky areas) and the fragmented topography of the Klamath Mountains and Southern Cascades ecoregions will likely continue to protect the species from widespread loss from catastrophic wildfire. Therefore, we have concluded that the future condition of the five terrestrial mollusks is not likely to change significantly.

Having determined that the five terrestrial mollusks are not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of their ranges, we now consider whether they may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of their ranges.

We evaluated the range of the five terrestrial mollusks to determine if any of the species are in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in any portion of their range. We divided the range of each of the five terrestrial mollusks in two ways: (1) analysis units (AUs) and (2) representation units (Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)-12 watersheds). AUs were based on NatureServe's 1-kilometer buffers for general animal and plant dispersal to assess resiliency of each species and HUC-12 watersheds were used to assess representation of each species. We also looked for any other possible clustering of AUs to ensure we were not missing a geographical area where the species may have a different regulatory status that warrants further investigation.

Therefore, for the five terrestrial mollusks, we considered whether any of the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the five terrestrial mollusks' ranges than in other portions such that any of the five species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in any identified portion. We evaluated the same threats as discussed above. As discussed in our rangewide analysis above, threats are not disproportionately affecting any of the five terrestrial mollusks in any portion of their respective ranges. While there may be impacts to individual snails associated with the threats, the impact of the threats are distributed equally across each of the terrestrial mollusks respective ranges and are not disproportionately affecting the five terrestrial mollusks in any AU. For all five terrestrial mollusks, all AUs have moderate to high resiliency in the near term and similar risk of catastrophic events such as wildfire. In our review of the current condition of the five terrestrial mollusks, we identified that the primary threats are lessened by the five terrestrial mollusks' habitat use (rock outcroppings, talus slopes, boulder piles, caves, wetted areas), the ecological setting of the Klamath Mountains and Southern Cascade ecoregions provide areas that are variably impacted by the effects of drought or severe wildfire, and the five terrestrial mollusks' behavioral responses to the threats ( i.e., avoiding activity during dry hot conditions, seeking shelter in areas that maintain cooler temperatures and moisture, and aestivating during such periods). Therefore, we found no portion of the five terrestrial mollusks' ranges where the biological condition of the species or subspecies differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species or subspecies in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of the species' or subspecies' range within the near term or within the foreseeable future.

As a result, we concluded that the Big Bar hesperian, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, and Wintu sideband are not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the decision in Everson because we have determined that there is no portion of the range where the species may be in danger of extinction ( i.e., the species cannot be in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range). Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Big Bar hesperian, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, and Wintu sideband do not meet the definition of endangered species or threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the Big Bar hesperian, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, and Wintu sideband is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the five terrestrial mollusks species assessment form and other supporting documents on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2026-2810 (see ADDRESSES , above).

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 in listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained in the five terrestrial mollusks SSA report. We sent the SSA report to five independent peer reviewers and received three responses. Results of this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2026-2810. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this finding.

On April 20, 2010, the Service received a petition from CBD, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including Chesapeake logperch, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, the Service published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836) announcing that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Chesapeake logperch under the Act.

The Chesapeake logperch is a small, benthic freshwater fish endemic to the lower Susquehanna River basin watersheds and its tributaries in Pennsylvania and Maryland. They primarily occur in large river habitat and connected tributaries where the river width is over 14 meters (45.9 feet). Chesapeake logperch require cobble, large rocks, and boulder substrate with low levels of silt, fine sediment, and substrate embeddedness. The substrate provides cover and protection for juveniles and adults, spawning habitat for egg development, and habitat for Chesapeake logperch forage species. Similar to other darter species, the Chesapeake logperch requires clean flowing water with a variety of substrate types and feeds primarily on macroinvertebrates. To forage, Chesapeake logperch adults move substrate materials and flip rocks to find their prey. Spawning is believed to occur in April through June. Sufficient population size and connectivity are needed for maintaining genetic diversity and to support reproduction and recruitment within populations.

At the population and species level, the Chesapeake logperch requires the same key elements (adequate water quantity and quality, and adequate habitat for shelter, spawning, and feeding) as individuals, at a scale sufficient to support population health and reproduction as well as sustainable population size and connectivity between populations. In general, larger and more closely connected populations are expected to have increased opportunities for reproduction to maintain genetic diversity. Ultimately, Chesapeake logperch viability depends on the number of healthy populations, distribution of healthy populations, and connectivity between populations to allow the species to withstand catastrophic events ( i.e., redundancy and resiliency) and suitable genetic and environmental diversity to allow the species to adapt to changing environmental conditions ( i.e., representation).

To determine whether the Chesapeake logperch is in danger of extinction throughout all of it range, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Chesapeake logperch, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the Chesapeake logperch's biological status include poor water quality (nutrient loading, sedimentation and siltation, other pollutants) and barriers to dispersal. We also examined other potential threats to Chesapeake logperch including impacts of invasive fish species due to competition and predation and the effects of increased temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns which have the potential to alter the habitat of the Chesapeake logperch. Also, conservation actions such as water quality improvement, barrier removal, and invasive species control projects are likely beneficial to the species. Efforts to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed through stream restoration and riparian buffer plantings likely have indirect benefits for the species. A number of completed stream restoration projects likely benefit the Chesapeake logperch specifically and reduce water quality threats.

The Chesapeake logperch occurs in a variety of habitats within the lower Susquehanna River basin watersheds and its tributaries in Pennsylvania and Maryland. To assess resiliency of the Chesapeake logperch, the range was divided into 18 currently occupied analytical units (17 HUC-12s plus the Susquehanna Flats—Chesapeake Bay AU) and these units were treated as separate populations based on occurrence records, expert input, and the species' known distribution within the Susquehanna River basin. The Susquehanna Flats—Chesapeake Bay AU, located at the mouth of the Susquehanna River, in Chesapeake Bay, is not attributed to a HUC-12, so three HUC-12s that surround the area where these fish are found were used as a proxy to assess land use including Swan Creek—Frontal Chesapeake Bay, Rock Run—Susquehanna River, and Mill Creek—Furnace Bay.

We conducted qualitative assessments of the current condition (resiliency analysis) of each population through evaluations of variables encompassing the species' demographics. We also assessed the level of habitat impairment in each AU (impairment analysis). The level of impairment provides an understanding of the quality of Chesapeake logperch habitat in each AU. The level of impairment did not affect resiliency scores for the AUs but provided contextual information and assisted in the analysis of future conditions.

We determined the resiliency scores for 15 of the 18 AUs, as these AUs could be assessed using the demographic data available. We conducted the impairment analysis on all AUs except for the Elk Neck—Frontal Chesapeake Bay (17 of 18 AUs), as water impairment data were unavailable for this AU. The resiliency scores of three AUs were considered “unknown,” as we did not have sufficient demographic information available to inform the resiliency assessment; However, habitat variables for the impairment analysis were evaluated for two of these three “unknown” units (North East River—Frontal Chesapeake Bay, and Susquehanna Flats—Chesapeake Bay).

Currently, 73 percent of the species' range (11 of 15 AUs) is categorized as highly or moderately resilient, based on demographic information (abundance, distribution, population trend). Additionally, most of the species' range had some to no impairment (76 percent or 13 of 17 AUs) based on habitat factors (land cover, water impairment, dams). This level of high to moderate resiliency across most of the Chesapeake logperch's range contributes to its ability to withstand stochastic events. Despite threats acting on Chesapeake logperch, there are many moderately to highly resilient units spread throughout the species' range, thus contributing to the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events such as strong storms and extensive droughts (high redundancy). While a potential catastrophic event could impact several AUs at once, a catastrophic event is unlikely to impact the species throughout its entire range.

The representation (adaptive capacity) analysis of Chesapeake logperch indicates that the species' capacity to adapt to change is moderately high based on gene flow throughout most of its range and several life history characteristics ( e.g., high fecundity, flexible feeding habits, habitat generalist). Despite some loss of genetic diversity over time from a few extirpated sites across its range, and other life history characteristics that suggest lower adaptive capacity ( e.g., low recruitment, small occurrence extent), and reduced ability to disperse or move out of harm's way when conditions in current locations become temporarily or permanently unsuitable (shift in space) due to dams in some locations, the Chesapeake logperch life history characteristics and gene flow throughout its range indicate that its current representation is moderately high, and thus, sufficient to support species viability. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the Chesapeake logperch is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.

Therefore, we proceeded with determining whether the Chesapeake logperch is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. For the Chesapeake logperch, we considered future condition at three timesteps to capture both a nearer-term assessment of future condition and longer-term assessment of the future. These timesteps include: (1) 2040, 2075, and 2100 to simulate future condition at three timesteps, (2) 2040 and 2075, roughly 15 and 50 years into the future, and (3) 2100, the end of this century. These years also align with the available datasets for land cover and climate scenarios. For each timestep we considered changes in resiliency under two future climate scenarios, a lower impacts scenario representing a lower trajectory for climate effects, and a higher impacts scenario, representing a higher trajectory for climate effects (a total of six scenarios). We used the FOREcasting SCEnarios of Land-Use Change (FORE-SCE) B2 (lower impacts) and A2 (higher impacts) land use scenarios to calculate the percent change in current non-developed and non-agricultural lands to be lost in each AU under each scenario at each timestep.

The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the Chesapeake logperch will maintain similar levels of resiliency, redundancy, and representation into the future. Almost all AUs (93.3 percent or 14 out of 15) are expected to maintain the same level of resiliency in the future that they have currently in the lower impacts scenario throughout all timesteps. For the higher impacts scenario, 13 out of 15 AUs (86.7 percent) are expected to maintain the same level of resiliency in the future. Thus, redundancy and representation may slightly decline. There is no anticipated change in the risk of catastrophic events in the future. Similar to the impacts in current condition, future catastrophic events may impact one or more AUs but are not likely to impact the species throughout its range. Overall, we do not expect any extreme changes in resiliency across all AUs, therefore redundancy is likely to remain similar to current levels.

Although some redundancy and representation for the Chesapeake logperch is expected to decrease under the higher impact scenario at the later timesteps, the species would continue to occur in multiple moderately to highly resilient AUs across its range within the foreseeable future. Thus, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Chesapeake logperch is not likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Having determined that the Chesapeake logperch is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range. In undertaking this analysis for the Chesapeake logperch we began by identifying portions of the range where the biological status of the species may be different from its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this purpose, we considered information pertaining to the geographic distribution of (a) individuals of the species, (b) the threats that the species faces, and (c) the resiliency condition of populations.

For many species, we can divide its range in an infinite number of ways. To assess current resiliency of the Chesapeake logperch, we divided the range into 18 AUs primarily based on HUC-12s, along with one AU for the open water population (the Susquehanna Flats—Chesapeake Bay AU). Individuals of the species are likely to interact with each other more frequently within river systems than across river systems. In summary, HUC-12s are the units that provide the appropriate scale to assess extinction risk and potential differences in regulatory status across the Chesapeake logperch's range.

We examined the primary threats facing the Chesapeake logperch as discussed above including any cumulative effects from these threats. We first considered whether the Chesapeake logperch may be in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range. We identified and evaluated a portion of the range consisting of four AUs in the southern part of the species range where the Chesapeake logperch has a higher extinction risk than the rest of the range and may be in danger of extinction. They include Basin Run-Octoraro Creek, North East Creek, Mill Creek-Furnace Bay, and Swan Creek-Frontal Chesapeake Bay. These four AUs currently have low resiliency due to high water impairment, instream barriers, low population abundance and distribution, or low availability of stream habitat. In summary, we find that the Chesapeake logperch is not in danger of extinction in the remaining AUs, but it may be in danger of extinction throughout a portion of the range—the southern portion.

For this portion of the range where the Chesapeake logperch may be in danger of extinction, we first addressed whether it is “significant.” For the purposes of this analysis when considering whether a portion is “significant,” we considered its conservation value for the species. The southern portion represents only a small geographical proportion of the range, containing a small percentage of populations (4 of 18 AUs) of the species. In addition, habitat is similar across the range of the Chesapeake logperch and the southern portion does not provide any unique ecological settings or habitat types for the species. Therefore, this is not a significant portion of the range of the Chesapeake logperch.

As a result of our finding that this portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the Chesapeake logperch is in danger of extinction throughout this portion of the 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. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors and CBD v. Jewell, because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the 2014 SPR Policy, including the definition of “significant,” that those court decisions held to be invalid. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the Chesapeake logperch is not in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we proceed with determining whether the Chesapeake logperch is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range.

For the threatened species determination, we examined the same threats as discussed above: degraded water quality ( i.e., nutrification, sedimentation/siltation, pollutants), barriers to dispersal (dams), changes in temperature and precipitation, and invasive species predation and competition, including cumulative effects. We identified and evaluated a portion of the range where the Chesapeake logperch has a higher extinction risk than the rest of the range and may be threatened that includes five AUs in the southern part of the species range. They include Basin Run—Octoraro Creek, North East Creek, Mill Creek—Furnace Bay, Swan Creek—Frontal Chesapeake Bay, and Lower Deer Creek.

In each AU within this portion of the range, the projected resiliency is low due to water quality impairment, instream barriers, low population abundance and distribution, or low availability of stream habitat. The resiliency of four of the AUs remains low (similar to current condition) and one additional AU (Lower Deer Creek) is expected to decrease from moderate to low for all timesteps. This is due to a projected increase in land use change and potential impacts from warming and changing rainfall patterns, such as water temperatures that may exceed Chesapeake logperch tolerance.

For this portion of the range where the species may become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future, we first addressed whether it is “significant.” The southern portion represents only a small geographical proportion of the range, containing a small percentage of populations (5 of 18 AUs) of the species. In addition, habitat is similar across the range of the Chesapeake logperch and this portion of the range does not provide any unique ecological settings or habitat types for the species.

As a result of our finding that this portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the Chesapeake logperch is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout this portion of the range. Therefore, no portion of the species' range provides a basis for determining that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors and CBD v. Jewell, because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the 2014 SPR Policy, including the definition of “significant,” that those court decisions held to be invalid. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the Chesapeake logperch is not likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range.

Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Chesapeake logperch does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the Chesapeake logperch is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Chesapeake logperch species assessment form and other supporting documents on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2026-2806 (see ADDRESSES , above).

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 in listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained in the Chesapeake logperch SSA report. We sent the SSA report to seven independent peer reviewers and received six responses. Results of this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2026-2806. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this finding.

On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from CBD, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including Kirtland's snake as an endangered or a threatened species under Act. On September 27, 2011, we found that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the listing of 374 species, including the Kirtland's snake, may be warranted (76 FR 59836). We completed a SSA report in 2017 to compile the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the species' biology and factors that influence the species' viability. On October 5, 2017, we published a 12-month finding determining that listing the Kirtland's snake was not warranted (82 FR 46618).

On June 8, 2022, CBD and the Hoosier Environmental Council submitted a complaint challenging this decision. The complaint focused on our analysis of the five listing factors, climate change impacts, and significant portion of the range. On July 1, 2024, we signed a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs wherein we agreed to re-evaluate the status of the Kirtland's snake under the Act and send a new 12-month finding to the Federal Register on or before June 30, 2026, which was later extended to September 28, 2026. We then developed the 2026 SSA report, which serves as the biological underpinning of our decision on whether the Kirtland's snake warrants protection under the Act. This document constitutes our new 12-month finding fulfilling the July 1, 2024, settlement agreement to re-evaluate Kirtland's snake under the Act.

The Kirtland's snake is a small, slender, non-venomous, and secretive snake historically found sporadically distributed across areas of Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Extant sites occur in every State except Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Kirtland's snake is fossorial ( i.e., living primarily underground) and is always found in close proximity to a permanent or seasonal water source, including wetlands, streams, reservoirs, lakes, or ponds. Across its range, the Kirtland's snake uses diverse and varied moist habitats primarily prairie habitats or wet grasslands, but it also occurs in urban and suburban areas with temporary or permanent water sources.

Five elements are essential for Kirtland's snake survival: moist soils, burrows, cover, hibernation areas, and prey. The Kirtland's snake spends most of its time underground in moist soil and is often found in or near crayfish burrows. When the Kirtland's snake is above ground, it is almost always found under natural or artificial cover objects instead of basking or moving through open areas. The Kirtland's snake preys primarily on worms, slugs, and crayfish. Individuals exhibit within- and between-year site fidelity ( i.e., returning to the same location) and have relatively small home ranges (approximately 650 square meters) (0.16 acres). Generally, population viability requires healthy demography and sufficient habitat. Kirtland's snake viability depends on there being a sufficient number and distribution of healthy populations to ensure that the species can withstand annual variation in its environment ( i.e., resiliency), catastrophes ( i.e., redundancy), and novel biological and physical changes in its environment ( i.e., representation).

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Kirtland's snake, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the Kirtland's snake's biological status include habitat loss and modification, and temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture alterations.

Habitat loss and modification have occurred across the range of the Kirtland's snake and remain an ongoing threat in parts of the range as grasslands, forests, and wetlands are converted to agriculture, residential, or other uses. Ground disturbance may cause injury or mortality of individuals and snakes can be permanently displaced when suitable habitat is no longer available. In addition, habitat fragmentation has been suggested as a potential threat leading to population isolation. However, the Kirtland's snake can occur in high numbers in fragmented, small patches of habitat, so long as certain key features ( e.g., moist soils) are present. While Kirtland's snakes have been documented in some smaller urban and suburban sites for decades, these sites are more vulnerable to future development and other threats compared to protected sites because habitat quality is poorer and protected sites are generally not at risk of development. Across the species' range, 30 percent of extant Kirtland's snake sites are owned or managed by conservation organizations or agencies which provide some protection from these threats.

Temperature, precipitation and soil moisture alterations are stressors for the Kirtland's snake. Average temperatures are expected to increase in the Midwest into the future. Moist soil (a key habitat requirement) is expected to significantly decline in the August to October time period (the warmest and driest portion of the Kirtland's snake active period, and also the period when females give birth to young, and when young could be vulnerable to desiccation) into the future. This drying trend is expected to be accompanied by increased variability in precipitation, more frequent wet-dry transitions, and more extreme flooding and drought events. The best scientific and commercial data indicate Kirtland's snakes can likely survive underground in crayfish burrows during typical seasonal flood events and during occasional more severe floods, but with potential negative impacts to body condition and reproductive capacity that year. Floods that are long-term or very severe may cause mortality of individuals and could impact whole populations. In the Midwest, droughts that result in vegetation losses and water shortages are typically rare and usually cover only a small portion of the region, although records of the Kirtland's snake have been confirmed throughout many counties that experienced periods of drought since 2000. The Kirtland's snake's ability to aestivate (enter a state of dormancy with reduced activity and metabolic rate) and the fact that they spend most of their time underground in moist soil using crayfish and other animal burrows suggests an ability to withstand dry periods. The Kirtland's snake is capable of colonizing restored wetland habitat when adjacent to existing populations of Kirtland's snakes, demonstrating their ability to move short distances into suitable habitat. Additionally, the fossorial behavior of the Kirtland's snake may allow it to withstand some changes in temperature and precipitation by remaining in underground burrows that retain moisture and modulate temperature.

We used the presence of suitable habitat (habitat which meets the species' needs) with vegetative cover and water resources as a way to measure resiliency. Kirtland's snake redundancy was assessed using the number and distribution of extant and possibly extant sites across the range. We assessed representation of the species in the form of ecological diversity as well as the ability of the Kirtland's snake to disperse or move out of harm's way when conditions in current locations become temporarily or permanently unsuitable from a “shift in space.”

To determine whether the Kirtland's snake is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we reviewed the threats, the responses to those threats (including any cumulative effect of the threats), and any amelioration of the threats associated with regulatory or conservation measures. We began by determining the scale that is biologically appropriate for a classification determination for the snake.

For assessing viability of the Kirtland's snake, we divided the range into sites and counties. The best scientific and commercial data available does not indicate how to combine sites into biologically-based units (populations). It is possible that snakes can move within and among sites and across county lines; therefore, we considered whether county-level units could be combined into a biologically based unit. Ultimately, we found that there are three counties across northern Tennessee and southern Kentucky (TN/KY) that are separated enough that snakes are unlikely to interact with the rest of the range. Therefore, we conducted our analysis considering two units of Kirtland's snake: the TN/KY unit and the unit including counties within the rest of the range.

The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the Kirtland's snake is not in danger of extinction in either unit (the TN/KY unit and the unit including counties within the rest of the range). There are highly resilient sites spread across the range in both units. Specifically, in the TN/KY unit, 100 percent of sites have high condition of suitable vegetative cover and water resources and thus have high resiliency. In the unit including counties within the rest of the range, 49 percent of counties had more than half of evaluated sites in high condition of suitable vegetative cover and water resources and thus high resiliency. The species' range is relatively large, covering seven States across the Midwest with varying temperature and precipitation conditions, and the overall current range still encompasses the majority of the historical range. There has been a slight reduction from the known historical range to the current range in the unit including the counties within the rest of the range in some of the easternmost areas. The TN/KY unit has expanded from previously known historical levels into a new county since 2017 but is adjacent to the counties that already had known records in that area. Therefore, the ecological diversity that occurs across the species range remains comparable to historical conditions in each of the two units. The species also has the adaptive capacity to withstand unsuitable climate conditions by seeking refuge in underground burrows that retain moisture and modulate temperature. The best scientific and commercial data indicate that this capacity has not changed from the snakes' historical capabilities.

In summary, we find that the Kirtland's snake is not in danger of extinction in any areas across its range ( i.e., in neither unit). Thus, there is no portion of the range where the Kirtland's snake may be in danger of extinction. Because there is no portion of the range in which the Kirtland's snake is endangered, it also logically cannot be in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the Kirtland's snake is not in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the decision in Everson because we have determined that there is no portion of the range where the species may be in danger of extinction ( i.e., the species cannot be in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range). Therefore, we proceed with determining whether Kirtland's snake is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

We evaluated whether the Kirtland's snake has a similar risk of extinction within the foreseeable future in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction risk within the same biologically-based units as we did for the endangered species classification (the TN/KY unit and the unit including counties within the rest of the range). For the future condition of the species, we evaluated changes in land cover (as a proxy to measure changes in suitable habitat) and soil storage, which quantifies water stored in the soil column, into the future under two plausible scenarios. We considered future condition at two timesteps, mid-century (2041-2070) and late-century (2071-2100), to capture both a nearer-term and longer-term assessment of the future condition. These years also align with the available datasets for land cover and climate scenarios. For each time step we considered changes in resiliency under two future climate scenarios using a combination of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) scenarios. We selected SSP2-RCP4.5 for the lower bounds scenario and SSP5-RCP8.5 as the upper bounds scenario (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2021, p. 54). To evaluate changes in soil water storage over time, we used data from the Climate Model Intercomparison Program Phase 6 Localized Constructed Analogs, version 2 monthly water balance model (Alder 2023, entire).

All sites in the TN/KY unit are projected to be in high resiliency regarding the land cover analysis. Although there is a projected minimal decline in the number of high resiliency sites into the future in the unit including counties within the rest of the range, counties with a higher proportion of high resiliency sites are projected to remain widely distributed across the unit. Therefore, future resiliency of the snake is projected to remain comparable to current levels in both units. While the areas in the TN/KY unit are projected to have a change in soil storage into the future, the surrounding states in the unit including counties within the rest of the range are also projected to experience some level of change in soil storage. However, counties with a higher proportion of high resiliency sites are projected to remain distributed across all seven states in both units, and thus the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events, such as prolonged drought, is expected to remain approximately the same as current condition. Additionally, the ecological diversity that occurs across the species range and the species' ability to withstand unsuitable climate conditions by seeking refuge in underground burrows that retain moisture and modulate temperature remains comparable to historical conditions in each of the two units.

In summary, we find that the Kirtland's snake is not likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future in any areas across its range ( i.e., in either unit). Thus, there is no portion of the range where the Kirtland's snake is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. Because there is no portion of the range in which the Kirtland's snake is threatened, it is necessarily not likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Thus, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Kirtland's snake is not likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Kirtland's snake does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the Kirtland's snake is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Kirtland's snake species assessment form and other supporting documents on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2026-2811 (see ADDRESSES , above).

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 in listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained in the Kirtland's snake 2026 SSA report. We sent the 2026 SSA report to three independent peer reviewers and received three responses. Results of this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2026-2811. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this finding.

On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from CBD, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Tierra Curry, and Noah Greenwald to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including orangefin madtom, as an endangered or threatened species and to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding (76 FR 59836) that the petition contained substantial information indicating listing may be warranted for the species. This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list orangefin madtom under the Act.

The orangefin madtom is a small, slender-bodied fish in the catfish family, Ictaluridae. Originally observed in the upper Roanoke River, Virginia (generally considered the geographic core for the species), the orangefin madtom has since been documented in the Dan River, Pigg River, Mayo River, Smith River and James River systems in Virginia and North Carolina. The upper Roanoke, Pigg, Dan, Mayo, and Smith River systems represent the species' historical range. Orangefin madtoms were discovered in 1951 in the upper James River system and are likely the result of an introduction (likely from a bait bucket) from individuals collected from the upper Roanoke River, which is supported by population genetic analyses.

Orangefin madtoms are primarily found in fast-flowing sections of small to large creeks, streams, and rivers with cobble substrate that are free of sand and silt. Orangefin madtoms utilize the interstitial spaces between cobble substrate for shelter and spawning. They feed on small aquatic insects, including flies, mayflies, hydropsychid caddisflies, and midges. Orangefin madtom viability depends on there being a sufficient number and distribution of healthy populations to ensure that the species can withstand annual variation in its environment ( i.e., resiliency), catastrophes ( i.e., redundancy), and novel biological and physical changes in its environment ( i.e., representation).

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the orangefin madtom, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the orangefin madtom's biological status include water pollution, sedimentation, dams, and extreme flooding and drought events.

To determine whether the orangefin madtom is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we reviewed the threats, the responses to those threats (including any cumulative effect of the threats), and any amelioration of the threats associated with regulatory or conservation measures. We began by determining the scale that is biologically appropriate for a classification determination for the orangefin madtom. For assessing resiliency of the orangefin madtom, we divided the range into 6 river systems which were further divided into smaller HUC-10 AUs, resulting in 17 AUs within the 6 broader river systems. We determined the scale that is biologically appropriate for a classification determination is the six river systems because these basins are areas with similar ecological settings, and differing genetics. Individuals of the species are likely to interact with each other more frequently within river systems than across river systems. In addition, at this largest unit scale ( i.e., river system), we can assess whether there are multiple resilient populations in a geographic distribution that can help guard against losses from catastrophic events or provide sources of adaptive capacity. In summary, river systems are the units that provide the appropriate scale to assess extinction risk and potential differences in regulatory status across the orangefin madtom's range.

We then evaluated whether the orangefin madtom has a similar near-term risk of extinction in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction risk within each river system. We determined that the orangefin madtom's near-term extinction risk varies across its range such that its regulatory status may be different in a portion of the range.

We found the orangefin madtom is not in danger of extinction in the Upper Roanoke, James, Pigg, and Dan River systems. All but one AU are highly to moderately resilient with stable population trends. Orangefin madtoms in AUs with high or moderate resiliency are characterized by being abundant to somewhat abundant with increasing or stable population trends. Moderate to high resiliency indicates that the species has the ability to withstand stochastic events and the threats we identified. In assessing redundancy within each of these systems, while there is a risk for catastrophic events ( e.g., chemical spills and extreme flooding or drought events), we found it unlikely an entire river system would be affected at one time. Further, redundancy has increased with the expansion in the James River system.

Lastly, representation is likely similar to historical levels given the similar range. Orangefin madtoms exhibit traits that contribute both positively and negatively to adaptive capacity. Positive traits include the species' ability to move and spread out within suitable habitat and to disperse away from altered habitats. Therefore, the threats acting in the near-term on the species in the Upper Roanoke, James, Pigg, and Dan River systems are not of a magnitude to increase the risk of extinction to the point where the species is in danger of extinction in any of those river systems and these AUs are not included in the portion being evaluated for the endangered classification. The Smith and Mayo River systems, however, contain smaller populations with isolated distributions and decreasing population trends which are more vulnerable to the threats we identified. Therefore, we found orangefin madtom may be in danger of extinction in a portion of the range—the Smith and Mayo River systems.

For this portion of the range where the orangefin madtom may be in danger of extinction, we first addressed whether it is “significant.” For the purposes of this analysis when considering whether a portion is “significant,” we considered its conservation value for the species. To quantify the amount of occupied stream habitat within each river system, we measured the linear distance between the farthest upstream and downstream orangefin madtom records (using all known records). The Smith and Mayo River system portion represents only a small proportion of occupied stream habitat (12 percent) for the orangefin madtom. Also, while the Smith and Mayo River system portion contains two of the six river systems, the portion does not possess any high value or unique habitat because the habitat features are similar to the features found in the other river systems in the range.

As a result of our finding that this portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the orangefin madtom is in danger of extinction throughout this portion of the 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. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors and CBD v. Jewell, because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the 2014 SPR Policy, including the definition of “significant,” that those court decisions held to be invalid. Because the orangefin madtom is not in danger of extinction in part of the range (Upper Roanoke, James, Pigg, and Dan River systems), the species also logically cannot be in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.

Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the orangefin madtom is not in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we proceed with determining whether the orangefin madtom is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

We predicted future resiliency based on the projected percent forest and wetland loss under two climate scenarios ( i.e., “lower impact” and “higher impact” scenarios) at two timesteps: years 2040 and 2075. We used the FORE-SCE B2 (lower impacts) and A2 (higher impacts) land use scenarios to calculate the percent change in forest and wetland cover within each AU as a proxy for changes in water quality. While the FORE-SCE model projects land use changes under two future climate scenarios, it does not account for other potential impacts ( e.g., changes in timing and intensity of precipitation, warming temperatures, etc.). Therefore, we relied on RCPs to qualitatively analyze and discuss potential impacts not accounted for in the FORE-SCE model. RCP4.5 is a lower impacts scenario that would relate most closely with our B2 scenario in FORE-SCE, and RCP8.5 is a higher impacts scenario that would relate most closely with our A2 scenario in FORE-SCE.

Similar to current condition, in assessing redundancy in the future, we considered the potential effects of chemical spills and extreme flooding or drought events. We evaluated whether the orangefin madtom has a similar risk of extinction within the foreseeable future in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction risk within each river system. Similar to our evaluation of current condition, we determined the river system is the biologically appropriate scale to evaluate future condition. Our review indicated that the orangefin madtom's extinction risk varies across its range such that its regulatory status may be different in a portion of the range.

We found the orangefin madtom is not likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future in the Upper Roanoke and James River systems. All but one AU within these river systems is projected to have high or moderate resiliency under all future scenarios. The moderate to high resiliency of AUs within each river system indicates that the species has the ability to withstand stochastic events and the threats we identified. While there is a risk for catastrophic drought, flooding, or large pollution events to occur, it is unlikely that these events would impact the entire species' range (or river system) at the same time. Overall, while water pollution, sedimentation, dams, and flooding/drought are predicted to affect the orangefin madtom, given the projected number of highly to moderately resilient populations with stable population trends within the Upper Roanoke and James River systems, the threats are not of a magnitude to increase the risk of extinction to the point where the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future; therefore, they are not included in the portion being evaluated for the threatened classification. Because there is a part of the range in which the orangefin madtom is not threatened, it is necessarily not likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

The Pigg, Smith, Mayo, and Dan River systems, however, are projected to have smaller populations with isolated distributions and decreasing population trends under the 2070 higher impact scenario. Therefore, we found orangefin madtom may be likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout a portion of the range ( i.e., the Pigg, Smith, Mayo, and Dan River systems).

For the Pigg, Smith, Mayo, and Dan River portion of the range, we first addressed whether it is “significant.” For the purposes of this analysis when considering whether a portion is “significant,” we considered its conservation value for the species. The Pigg, Smith, Mayo, and Dan River systems portion represents only a small proportion of occupied stream habitat (35 percent) for the orangefin madtom. Also, the portion does not possess high value or unique habitat because the habitat features are similar to the features found in the other river systems in the range.

As a result of our finding that this portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the orangefin madtom is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout this portion of the range. Therefore, no portion of the species' range provides a basis for determining that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors and CBD v. Jewell, because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the 2014 SPR Policy, including the definition of “significant,” that those court decisions held to be invalid. Because the orangefin madtom is not likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future in part of the range (Upper Roanoke and James River systems), the species also logically cannot be likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the orangefin madtom is not likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the orangefin madtom does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the orangefin madtom is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the orangefin madtom species assessment form and other supporting documents on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2026-2807 (see ADDRESSES , above).

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 in listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained in the orangefin madtom SSA report. We sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and received four responses. Results of this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2026-2807. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this finding.

On December 4, 2020, we were petitioned to list the tall western penstemon as an endangered species under the Act by CBD and Native Plant Society of Oregon. On October 19, 2022, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that multiple species, including the tall western penstemon, may be warranted for listing under the Act (87 FR 63468). This document constitutes our 12-month finding on the December 4, 2020, petition to list tall western penstemon under the Act.

Tall western penstemon is a long-lived tall herbaceous perennial forb in the Plataginaceae (formerly Scrophulariaceae) family with purplish-blue tubular flowers. It is endemic to the northern Willamette Valley and southern Puget Trough region of Oregon and Washington. It is a narrow endemic species that occurs in small, isolated populations ranging in size from roughly 100 to 6,000 flowering stems. The species is found primarily in wet prairie but also in other seasonally wet habitats, including openings in forested Oregon white oak ( Quercus garryana ) and Oregon ash ( Fraxinus latifolia ) wetlands, and open riparian forests. Tall western penstemon was presumed extinct but rediscovered in 2008 on the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Oregon (Christy and Maffitt 2018, p. 8). The plants are seasonally dormant in the winter when their habitat is typically flooded. The basal leaves emerge in the spring as early as March or April, with stem elongation from April to May. In late May, flowering begins and continues through August, along with capsule (seed pod) development. In August to September, capsules mature and split to allow seed dispersal, with some capsules remaining intact with seeds on stems until the following growing season. Individual plants can have from 1 to 100 or more flowering stems, each with 10 to 80 flowers per stem. Individual plants appear to be relatively long-lived and have the capacity to flower and produce seeds every year. Demographic data for this species are not available; however, individual plants have been observed for multiple years in a row, and other penstemon species are known to survive for greater than 13 years with an average of 9-10 years. Tall western penstemon reproduces both sexually and asexually. Asexual, vegetative reproduction occurs via layering, where lateral stems root at the nodes forming dense mats of genetically identical plants. Sexual reproduction occurs when flowers are successfully pollinated, forming capsule fruits and seeds that then disperse and germinate.

There are currently 21 populations of tall western penstemon, including 5 extant populations (historical populations that continue to exist today) and 16 reintroduced populations. Nine of the reintroduced populations are newly established sites planted in 2025, some of which are already documented to be flowering. In addition, three plant nurseries maintain tall western penstemon plants and store native seed in storage for future population restoration and reintroduction efforts, one of which (Metro Native Plant Center) also established a seed amplification bed in 2025. Two additional introduced sites in southern Benton County, Oregon, each support only 3-4 individual plants. Due to their small size and isolation from all other tall western penstemon populations, these sites are not considered viable populations. All recognized populations of tall western penstemon occur on protected lands or areas managed for wet prairie habitat, conditions that support the tall western penstemon.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the tall western penstemon, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the tall western penstemon's biological status include invasive plant species, woody vegetation encroachment, habitat destruction and fragmentation, small population sizes, and the alteration of seasonal wetland dynamics. We also examined other potential threats including disease and herbivory, but there are no documented instances of herbivory, disease, seed predation, or pathogens affecting this species.

Currently, there are several conservation measures that are ameliorating the threats to the tall western penstemon. All populations of tall western penstemon occur on lands protected and/or managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), or properties owned and managed by the regional government for the Oregon portion of the Portland metropolitan area (Metro). WDNR, Tualatin River NWR, and Metro each implement a range of habitat management actions via established resource management plans that support tall western penstemon habitat and target threats to the species such as herbicide treatments for invasive species and mowing to curb woody vegetation encroachment. Tall western penstemon population augmentations and reintroductions have occurred in the past and are planned for the future, enhancing the species' redundancy across its range. In 2025, nine new sites and a seed amplification bed were planted within the species' historical range, with approximately half confirmed to be flowering in the same year. Since the species' rediscovery in 2008, focused efforts in propagation and seed collection have supported these restoration initiatives. Two aforementioned nurseries, Metro Native Plant Center and Corvallis Plant Material Center, both maintain plant material and seed stock, and Metro Native Plant Center is also engaged in ongoing population augmentation and reintroductions.

At this time, the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the threats influencing the tall western penstemon have not significantly affected its viability. We evaluated the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the tall western penstemon using three demographic, three habitat, and one conservation metric. Results of our current condition analysis showed one population in high condition, five populations in moderate condition, three populations in low condition, and three populations in unknown condition due to limited data. The broad distribution of populations with high or moderate resiliency across the range provides redundancy and protection against catastrophic events that may impact the species' viability, as well as help the species cope with stochastic changes in its environment. While the tall western penstemon has a lower adaptive capacity due to its limited ability to disperse and its low genetic diversity, the species' clonal growth form and long-lived perennial life history confer moderate adaptive capacity allowing the species to adjust to ecological challenges.

In assessing whether the tall western penstemon is in danger of extinction now or likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of the species' range, we identified two portions of the range for further assessment: One that contained all of the Oregon populations (the Oregon unit) and one that contained the Washington population (the Washington unit).

We first assessed the Oregon unit. All populations in the Oregon unit exist on protected and managed land; therefore, there is little to no threat of development or land conversion. There are three known seed banks that maintain a genetic bank of seeds and bareroot plants, one of which currently contributes to population augmentation and reintroductions. Past and ongoing successful establishment of new populations of tall western penstemon in Oregon boosts the species' redundancy in the Oregon unit and lowers the risk of a single catastrophic event would impact all Oregon populations of tall western penstemon. The likelihood for additional future reintroductions and population augmentations would further boost redundancy and also help offset low gene flow resulting from isolation among populations by increasing connectivity across the landscape. The species is not at risk of overutilization and is not negatively impacted by any diseases. Although the threat of woody vegetation encroachment and invasive plant species remains, activities including (but not limited to) targeted herbicide use and mowing occur per the ongoing management plans in place at sites containing tall western penstemon. In addition, population augmentations and reintroductions alleviate these risks, which increases population resiliency and thus improves overall viability of the species. Overall, we found the tall western penstemon is not in danger of extinction in the near term in the Oregon unit; therefore, it is not included in the portion being evaluated for the endangered classification.

However, we found that the Washington unit may be in danger of extinction as it contains only one small, genetically isolated population with low resiliency that occupies a small habitat area. For the Washington unit, we first addressed whether it is “significant.” The Washington unit comprises only six percent of the species range and does not occur in a unique habitat type. It contains one population encompassing a small, occupied habitat area. For these reasons, we do not consider the Washington unit to be significant, and thus, we do not need to determine whether the species is in danger of extinction throughout this portion of the range.

Thus, we proceed with determining whether the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range ( i.e., threatened). Our analysis of four future scenarios, two through 2040 and two from 2040-2069, encompass the best scientific and commercial data available for probable future projections of the impact of threats to the tall western penstemon and the species' resiliency. Scenario 1 considers tall western penstemon viability through 2040 as threats are reduced with the continuation of ongoing conservation efforts by land managers in existing resource management plans, and scenario 2 considers species viability if current primary threats (competition with invasive plants and woody vegetation encroachment) increase through 2040 without any species-specific conservation efforts. In both scenarios, all populations had sufficient resiliency with populations of moderate resiliency distributed across the range, though some may have lower resiliency in scenario 2. While the alteration of seasonal wetland dynamics was introduced in scenarios 3 and 4, only one population was projected to be extirpated, which reduces the species' redundancy and genetic diversity conferred by that population. However, populations of moderate resiliency are still projected to occur across the landscape in these scenarios, suggesting the species will maintain representation throughout its range despite the influence of threats.

While altered wetland dynamics, invasive species, and woody vegetation encroachment are affecting the tall western penstemon, all populations are on protected lands managed for conservation of habitat. Targeted actions currently being implemented to improve species' habitat and mitigate threats to the species include invasive plant control by herbicides and manual methods, removal of woody vegetation, prescribed fire, mowing and population augmentations and reintroductions using nursery-grown and seed-amplified native plant material. In the Oregon unit, sufficiently resilient populations are present on the landscape to provide for redundancy. In addition, ongoing conservation actions continue to help increase connectivity and resiliency among populations in the Oregon unit. Populations in the Oregon unit are not in danger of overutilization or disease, and the threats that impact populations are being mitigated by conservation measures such that they do not rise to the magnitude necessary to put the species at risk of extinction within the foreseeable future. However, the Washington unit contains a much smaller single population that is genetically and geographically isolated, and therefore more vulnerable to future catastrophic events. In summary, we find that the tall western penstemon is not likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future in the Oregon unit, but it may be in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout a portion of the range—the Washington unit.

As discussed above, the Washington unit portion of the range is not a significant portion of the range, as the Washington unit comprises only 6 percent of the species range, contains a single population encompassing a small occupied habitat area and does not occur in a unique habitat type. As a result of our finding that this portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the tall western penstemon is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout this portion of the range.

In summary, we evaluated whether the tall western penstemon is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range. We did not find any portion of the tall western penstemon's range for which both (1) the portion is “significant”; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion, either now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best available scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the tall western penstemon is not in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, or likely to become so within the foreseeable future.

Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the tall western penstemon does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the tall western penstemon is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the tall western penstemon species assessment form and other supporting documents on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2026-2808 (see ADDRESSES , above).

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 in listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained in the tall western penstemon SSA report. We sent the SSA report to six independent peer reviewers and received two responses. Results of this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2026-2808. We incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this finding.

We request that you submit any new information concerning the taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to the Big Bar hesperian, Chesapeake logperch, Kirtland's snake, orangefin madtom, Shasta chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta sideband, tall western penstemon, or Wintu sideband to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor these species and make appropriate decisions about their conservation and status. We encourage local agencies and stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation efforts.

A complete list of the references used in these petition findings is available in the relevant species assessment form, which is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the appropriate docket (see ADDRESSES , above) and upon request from the appropriate person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above).

The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).