Federal Agencies
Federal Executive Branch
Here's a look at documents from the U.S. Executive Branch
Featured Stories
White House Fact Sheet: Expanding Access to Home Loans
WASHINGTON, March 14 -- The White House issued the following fact sheet on March 13, 2026:* * *
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Promotes Access to Mortgage Credit
EXPANDING ACCESS TO HOME LOANS: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to reduce regulatory burdens that have driven up mortgage costs, limited access for creditworthy borrowers, and weakened community bank participation in lending.
* The Order directs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to appropriately tailor mortgage rules to help enable smaller banks to facilitate more affordable lending, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 14 -- The White House issued the following fact sheet on March 13, 2026: * * * Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Promotes Access to Mortgage Credit EXPANDING ACCESS TO HOME LOANS: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to reduce regulatory burdens that have driven up mortgage costs, limited access for creditworthy borrowers, and weakened community bank participation in lending. * The Order directs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to appropriately tailor mortgage rules to help enable smaller banks to facilitate more affordable lending,including modernizing and streamlining regulatory and documentation requirements.
* It calls for Federal banking regulators to revise supervisory guidance to focus on prudent underwriting, rather than overly technical process-oriented approaches to lending, and to support construction lending by community banks.
* The Order directs the CFPB to modernize Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reporting requirements to reduce compliance burdens and protect borrower privacy.
* The Order directs Federal banking regulators to engage in responsible, safe, and efficient reforms to capital and liquidity rules to remove undue burdens on lending, such as tailoring risk weights to the material credit risk of the exposure, expanding access to longer-dated Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) advances tied to residential mortgage assets, and creating targeted FHLB liquidity programs for entry-level housing, owner-occupied purchase loans, and small residential builders.
* The Order further directs Federal banking regulators to modernize appraisal regulations by, for example, expanding alternative valuation models, reducing unnecessary appraisal requirements for low-risk transactions, and setting clearer timelines for appraisals.
* The Order promotes digital mortgage modernization by expanding electronic signatures, e-notes, and remote online notarization, which is anticipated to reduce lending costs and homebuying timelines.
* Federal banking regulators are further directed to consider whether to adopt new supervisory criteria that promote portfolio mortgage servicing as a core community banking function and otherwise take other actions that lower barriers to entry and costs of operation for community banks in the mortgage lending business.
RESTORING MORTGAGE COMPETITION TO LOWER RATES AND REVERSING MORE THAN A DECADE OF MARKET DISTORTION: President Trump is cutting red tape that has caused community banks to reduce their participation in mortgage lending, reduced competition among lenders that would lower mortgage rates, and made home loans harder to obtain for rural, low- and moderate-income, and first-time buyers.
* Over more than a decade, a wave of regulatory changes -- driven largely by the Dodd-Frank Act and subsequent rulemaking -- has dramatically increased the cost and complexity of accessing a mortgage.
* Community banks and smaller lenders have retreated from mortgage markets they once served, unable to absorb the compliance costs associated with making, servicing, or holding a mortgage made to community borrowers.
* Outdated appraisal rules and rigid supervisory expectations have slowed lending and increased costs, especially for low-risk loans and refinancings.
* These regulatory distortions have weakened the mortgage market, reduced lender competition that drives down rates, reduced the amount of available capital for creditworthy borrowers, and made homeownership less affordable for millions of Americans.
DELIVERING ON PROMISES TO AMERICAN FAMILIES: President Trump has undertaken an aggressive agenda to tackle the housing challenges facing American families and make the dream of homeownership accessible again.
* Earlier this year, President Trump signed an Executive Order to prevent large institutional investors from buying single-family homes that could otherwise be purchased by families, and called on Congress to codify these policies.
* President Trump has also directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities to further drive down borrowing costs.
* These targeted housing and affordability initiatives build on additional actions President Trump has taken to put more money in Americans' pockets.
- Overall deregulation efforts in 2025 are projected to save Americans a collective $212 billion -- roughly $2,500 per family of four.
- He signed the Working Families Tax Cuts into law - delivering the largest tax cut in American history and increasing paychecks by over $10,000 annually for a typical family of four.
- His America First, pro-growth, energy dominance, and deregulatory agenda has cut red tape, lowered inflation and mortgage rates, boosted GDP growth, and brought trillions in investments to the United States.
* President Trump continues to focus on ways to provide more relief to Americans from the economic and financial mismanagement of the Biden era, so families can prosper and achieve the American Dream of owning a home.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-promotes-access-to-mortgage-credit/
Surface Transportation Board Issues Decision Involving Union Pacific Railroad
WASHINGTON, March 14 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Board issued the following decision (Docket No. FD 36501) entitled "Union Pacific Railroad Co. - Construction and Operation Exemption - In Maricopa County, Arizona":* * *
Digest:/1 This decision authorizes Union Pacific Railroad Company to construct and operate approximately six miles of new rail line in Maricopa County, Ariz., subject to environmental and historic preservation conditions.
On June 30, 2022, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) filed a petition for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 14 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Board issued the following decision (Docket No. FD 36501) entitled "Union Pacific Railroad Co. - Construction and Operation Exemption - In Maricopa County, Arizona": * * * Digest:/1 This decision authorizes Union Pacific Railroad Company to construct and operate approximately six miles of new rail line in Maricopa County, Ariz., subject to environmental and historic preservation conditions. On June 30, 2022, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) filed a petition for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from theprior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 to construct and operate approximately six miles of rail line in connection with the Pecos Industrial Rail Access and Train Extension Project (the PIRATE project) in Maricopa County, Ariz. (the Line). The Line would connect the Pecos Advanced Manufacturing Zone (the PAMZ) to the UP main line west of the project area and provide rail service for Commercial Metals Company (CMC), as well as an alternative mode of freight transportation to future shippers. (Pet. 2.) By decision served on September 28, 2022, the Board instituted a proceeding under 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). No comments opposing the transportation merits of UP's petition were filed.
The Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) issued a Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) on May 31, 2023, examining the potential environmental and historic impacts of UP's proposal and requesting public comments, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370m-11, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 300101-307108.
As discussed in more detail below, in August 2023, OEA delayed issuance of a Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) after discovering that there had been significant ground disturbance and damage to National Register of Historic Places-eligible archaeological resources within the proposed right-of-way. Following briefing on the issue, the Board was unable to reach a majority decision on whether a violation of NHPA had occurred, and the historic review process under NHPA resumed. On February 27, 2026, OEA issued a Final EA updating the environmental analysis and responding to the comments received on the Draft EA. In the Final EA, based on that analysis, OEA determined that the conclusions in the Draft EA remain valid. The Final EA also recommended conditions to the Board to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the project's potential impacts on the environment and historic properties.
After considering the entire record, including the record on the transportation merits, the Draft EA, the Final EA, and all comments received, the Board will grant UP's petition for exemption, subject to the environmental and historic preservation mitigation measures listed in the Appendix and set forth in the Final EA.
BACKGROUND
UP proposes to construct and operate the Line in connection with the PIRATE project, a public/private initiative to fund, engineer, design, and build a six-mile industrial rail branch, on land primarily situated on the former Williams Air Force Base. (Pet. 3.) The Line would connect the PAMZ to the UP main line (the Phoenix Subdivision) located west of the project area. (Id. at 2.) According to the petition, UP has collaborated with the City of Mesa, Ariz., for several years on the project, which UP states will "provide far-reaching public benefits by transferring materials away from public roadways onto rail, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions, local air pollution, highway maintenance costs, and congestion associated with longhaul trucking." (Id. at 3; see also id., Ex. A (CMC Statement) at 2.) UP states that the project, which has support from several business organizations as well as public officials and governmental entities, is expected to drive economic growth and expand high-skill manufacturing jobs in Maricopa County. (Id. at 3-4; see also id., Ex. A (CMC Statement) at 1-2.) According to UP, the Line will allow CMC, the largest manufacturer of steel rebar in North America and Central Europe as well as a leading producer in the steel long products market, to receive raw materials and ship products to customers by rail more efficiently from two facilities in Mesa, eliminating an estimated 35,000 trucks per year (10,000 from current operations, and 25,000 from a new manufacturing facility that was scheduled to open in mid2023). (Id. at 4; id., Ex. A (CMC Statement) at 1-2.) UP states that the addition of the Line will also provide an alternative mode of freight transportation for future customers that locate along the industrial lead. (Id. at 2, 5.)
On June 30, 2023, CMC filed a letter in support of UP's petition for exemption, stating that the project is critical to the success of CMC's operations in Mesa. (CMC Letter 1-2, June 30, 2023.) As noted above, no comments opposing the transportation merits of the proposed Line were filed.
As part of the environmental and historic review process,/2 OEA initiated a historic review under Section 106 of the NHPA. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties (those listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register)). On April 6, 2022, OEA sent letters to a group of potential consulting parties/3 inviting them to participate in Section 106 consultation and soliciting comments regarding the proposed Area of Potential Effects (APE) for cultural resources./4 (Draft EA 5-4; id., App. K (Section 106 Consultation Documentation).) On September 1, 2022, UP was notified that a number of previously identified significant archaeological sites within the project's APE remained eligible for listing in the National Register, and that the proposed undertaking would have an adverse effect on historic resources. (See Jacobs Tech. Memorandum (Env't Comment EO-3827) at 3.)/5
On May 31, 2023, OEA issued a Draft EA that examined the potential environmental and historic impacts of the project, recommended preliminary mitigation based on the results of that analysis and agency consultation, and requested public comments. The Draft EA explained that, if the Board were to authorize the PIRATE project, measures to mitigate the project's adverse effects on cultural resources would be included in the project's Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP), which OEA was drafting at the time in consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); Native American Tribes (Tribes); other federal, state, and local agencies; and UP. (Draft EA 3-88 to 3-89.) The Draft EA comment period closed on June 30, 2023.
On July 28, 2023, while preparing the Final EA, OEA discovered that there had been significant ground disturbance and damage to National Register-listed and eligible archaeological resources in the APE. (See Letter from D. Gosselin (Director, OEA) to K. Rice (Sr. Manager M/W Environmental, UP) at 1 (Aug. 1, 2023) (Env't Comment EO-3825) (noting that OEA made this discovery during analysis of current aerial photography of the project area).) OEA promptly directed UP to secure the right-of-way to prevent further damage, began gathering information, and engaged in outreach with stakeholders./6 On August 31, 2023, following meetings with several Tribes, OEA delayed issuance of the Final EA until further notice. Union Pac. R.R.--Constr. & Operation Exemption--in Maricopa Cnty., Ariz., FD 36501 (STB served Aug. 31, 2023).
Among the issues raised by the Tribes were concerns as to whether a violation of Section 110(k) of the NHPA had occurred./7 On December 11, 2023, the Board commenced consideration of the applicability of Section 110(k) and took steps to obtain additional information about the circumstances surrounding the damage. See Union Pac. R.R.--Constr. & Operation Exemption--in Maricopa Cnty., Ariz., FD 36501, slip op. at 4-6 (STB served Dec. 11, 2023). The Board directed UP to respond to several information requests and to produce documents. Id. at 5-6; id., App. 2. It also invited submissions from UP and interested parties on whether UP engaged in "anticipatory demolition" of historic properties in violation of Section 110(k). Id. at 6. OEA also conducted a thorough damage assessment, which was memorialized in a technical report finalized in January 2025. (Env't Comment EO-3990, Jan. 30, 2025 (Invasive Cultural Res. Damage Assessment Tech. Rep.).)
On June 3, 2025, the Board issued a decision stating that it was unable to reach a majority on whether UP had violated Section 110(k) and that, therefore, no determination that Section 110(k) is applicable would be issued, and the Board would continue with the NHPA Section 106 process and its consideration of the merits of the petition. Union Pac. R.R.--Constr. & Operation Exemption--in Maricopa Cnty., Ariz., FD 36501, slip op. at 5 (STB served June 3, 2025). Following further consultations between and among the consulting parties, the MOA was executed on February 23, 2026, committing UP to comply with the terms and conditions pertaining to the protection of cultural resources within the APE, including the development of a HPTP. OEA issued the Final EA on February 27, 2026. The Final EA recommends conditions to the Board--including voluntary mitigation (VM) proposed by UP and mitigation measures (MMs) developed by OEA (each, an MM)--to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential environmental and historic impacts of the proposed construction and operation of the Line.
DISCUSSION
Rail Transportation Analysis. The construction and operation of new railroad lines requires prior Board authorization, either through issuance of a certificate under 49 U.S.C. 10901 or, as requested here, through an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the formal application procedures of section 10901. "In either case, the [statute] expresses a clear presumption in favor of approving railways." Seven Cnty. Infrastructure Coal. v. Eagle Cnty., 605 U.S. 168, 194 (2025) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); see also N. Plains Res. Council v. STB, 668 F.3d 1067, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2011) (agreeing that there is a statutory "presumption for construction"); Mid States Coal. for Progress v. STB, 345 F.3d 520, 552 (8th Cir. 2003) (same). Section 10901(c) directs the Board to grant rail construction proposals unless it finds the proposal "inconsistent with the public convenience and necessity." See Mid States, 345 F.3d at 552 (quoting 49 U.S.C. 10901(c)); Alaska R.R.--Constr. & Operation Exemption--A Rail Line Extension to Port MacKenzie, Alaska, FD 35095, slip op. at 5 (STB served Nov. 21, 2011), aff'd sub nom. Alaska Survival v. STB, 705 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2013). Under section 10502(a), the Board must, to the maximum extent consistent with Title 49, subtitle IV, part A, exempt the proposed construction and operation of a rail line from the detailed application procedures of section 10901 when it finds that: (1) those procedures are not necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101; and (2) either (a) the proposal is of limited scope, or (b) the full application procedures are not necessary to protect shippers from an abuse of market power.
While UP's posture and conduct during the course of this proceeding have raised serious concerns, the Board concludes that, based on the record, the proposed construction and operation of the Line qualify for an exemption under section 10502. The transportation merits of UP's petition are unopposed. The record shows that there is currently no rail service to the PAMZ, and that CMC, a major industrial shipper in the area, must rely solely on trucks to support operations at its two Mesa-based facilities. (See Pet. 2, 5, 7, 9; id., Ex. A at 1-2.) The Line would enhance competition by providing CMC and other potential shippers in the area with a freight rail option that does not currently exist, advancing the goals specified by 49 U.S.C. 10101(4) & (5). Additionally, providing a rail-based alternative to trucking would encourage and promote energy conservation in furtherance of 49 U.S.C. 10101(14). The requested exemption would also eliminate the unnecessary expense associated with the preparation and filing of a formal construction application, expedite regulatory decisions, and reduce regulatory barriers to entry for the Line, in furtherance of 49 U.S.C. 10101(2), (7) & (15). Other aspects of the rail transportation policy would not be adversely affected.
In addition, consideration of the proposed construction and operation of the Line under section 10901 is not necessary to protect shippers from an abuse of market power. As explained above, the Line would introduce a new freight transportation option for CMC and potential future shippers located in the PAMZ. CMC fully supports the project, and no comments opposing the project's transportation merits have been filed./8
Environmental Analysis. NEPA requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental effects of proposed federal actions and to inform the public concerning those effects. See Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). Under NEPA and related environmental laws, the Board must examine environmental impacts prior to deciding whether to authorize the construction of a new rail line as proposed, deny the proposal, or grant it with conditions (including environmental mitigation conditions). Lone Star R.R.--Track Constr. & Operation Exemption--in Howard Cnty., Tex., FD 35874, slip op. at 4 (STB served Mar. 3, 2016). The Board has "substantial discretion" in assessing the facts relevant to its environmental review and the relevant impacts. Seven Cnty., 145 S. Ct. at 1512. It also has "broad latitude" to "draw a 'manageable line'" regarding the scope of its inquiry. Id. at 1513 (citing Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 767 (2004)). NEPA does not require that the Board evaluate potential environmental effects arising from "future or geographically separate projects," "particularly" those over which the Board does not "exercise regulatory authority." Seven Cnty., 145 S. Ct. at 1515-17; see also id. at 1515 ("Importantly, the textually mandated focus of NEPA is the 'proposed action'--that is, the project at hand--not other future or geographically separate projects that may be built (or expanded) as a result of or in the wake of the immediate project under consideration.") (citing 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
Moreover, while NEPA prescribes a process that must be followed, it does not mandate a particular result. See Seven Cnty., 145 S. Ct. at 1510 (citing Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989)). Nor does NEPA otherwise impose any "substantive constraints on the agency's ultimate decision to build, fund, or approve a proposed project." Seven Cnty., 145 S. Ct. at 1511; see also Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350-51. Rather, in making such decisions, the Board may "weigh environmental consequences as [it] reasonably sees fit under its governing statute and any relevant substantive environmental laws," and may conclude that "other values outweigh the environmental costs." See Seven Cnty., 145 S. Ct. at 1507, 1510 (citing Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350).
There has been a thorough environmental review in this case. On May 31, 2023, OEA issued a Draft EA addressing in detail the potential environmental impacts of the proposed construction and operation of the Line./9 The Draft EA analyzed a broad range of environmental issues, such as transportation and safety, air quality, noise and vibration, hazardous materials and waste sites, biological resources, water resources, geology and soils, land use and farmland, socioeconomics, visual quality, and cultural resources. The Draft EA concluded that UP's proposed action would have negligible, minor, and/or temporary impacts and that with the mitigation, no significant impacts would occur. (See generally Draft EA v-ix (tbl. S-1).) OEA recommended 74 mitigation measures to address project-related impacts in the areas of transportation and safety, air quality, noise and vibration, hazardous materials and waste sites, biological resources, water resources, geology and soils, land use and farmland, socioeconomics, cultural resources, and visual quality. (See Draft EA 4-2 to 4-13 (listing measures).) The Draft EA also explained that an EA is appropriate in this case and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. (Id. at xii, 1-7 to 1-8, 3-108.)
OEA received 10 comments on the Draft EA./10 In the Final EA, served February 27, 2026, OEA updated its analysis and responded to the substantive comments received on the Draft EA./11 (Final EA, App. M at M-1 to M-2, M-3 to M-14 (tbl. M-1, Draft EA Comments and Responses).) In response to comments, OEA recommended adding four new MMs; removing one MM because it is no longer applicable; and modifying 12 MMs to address changes to an existing condition or otherwise respond to a comment received. (Final EA 4-2 (listing the MMs).) Where appropriate, OEA also clarified and corrected information in the Draft EA. (Final EA, App. M at M-1.) OEA reaffirmed its conclusion in the Draft EA that the potential environmental and historic impacts of the Line would be negligible, minor, and/or temporary and that with mitigation, no significant impacts would occur. (Final EA iii.) In the Final EA, OEA did not change any of its conclusions from the Draft EA. (Id. at ii.) OEA also recommended that the Board impose all of the mitigation in the Final EA on any decision authorizing the proposed rail line. (Id. at xi (citing Ch. 4, Recommended Mitigation).)/12
The Board is satisfied that OEA has taken the requisite hard look at the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed construction and operation of the Line and that the EA complied with NEPA. The Draft EA and Final EA adequately assess the environmental impacts of the proposed construction and operation and include appropriate recommended environmental mitigation to avoid or minimize potential environmental impacts./13 The Board finds that OEA properly determined that, with the recommended environmental mitigation measures, the proposed project will not have potentially significant environmental impacts, and that preparation of an EIS is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Board adopts the analysis and conclusions in the Final EA, including the recommendation to authorize Alternative 1 and the final recommended mitigation measures, which are set forth in the Appendix to this decision.
Historic Review Analysis. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to "take into account the effect of" their licensing decisions (in this case, whether to grant UP's request for an exemption, also called the "undertaking" under NHPA) on properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register. If the undertaking would have an adverse effect on historic properties, the agency must continue to consult to avoid, minimize or mitigate the adverse effect. See 36 CFR 800.6(a).
As detailed in the Final EA, OEA initiated the Section 106 process for the PIRATE project in April 2022, conducted cultural resources surveys from May through September 2022, assessed project effects in October and November 2022, and thereafter started the process to resolve adverse effects. (Final EA x, 5-4 to 5-7; id., App. K2 (Sec. 106 Consultation Documentation).) During the Section 106 process, OEA consulted with 15 agencies and 10 federally recognized Native American Tribes (Section 106 consulting parties), four of which requested government-to-government consultation. (Final EA x.) OEA determined that construction of the Line would adversely affect four National Register-eligible and/or listed archaeological sites under Alternative 1, while Alternative 2 would affect three of those sites. (Id.) In consultation with the Section 106 consulting parties, OEA developed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that identifies requirements and treatment measures that must be implemented to mitigate adverse effects. (Id., citing Sec. 3.12, Archaeological and Historic Resources, and Sec. 5.1.2, NHPA Section 106 Consultation; see generally Final EA, App. K1 (MOA), Stipulations II, III, VI, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XIX, XX, XXI (describing UPrelated requirements and responsibilities).) The execution of the MOA on February 23, 2026, completed the Section 106 review process and commits the signatories to meet their responsibilities under the MOA and the HPTP.
While this project satisfies the criteria for exemption, UP's failure to adequately protect the identified National Register-eligible archaeological sites in the APE from disturbance during the pendency of the proceeding was deeply troubling. UP represents that it has instituted several new practices to ensure that, going forward, cultural resources are not disturbed or damaged during the pendency of the NHPA Section 106 process for a construction project. (UP Submission 14-17, Dec. 16, 2024.) UP acknowledges that failures in communications and lack of awareness of the historic review process by various UP personnel are "unacceptable" and "in need of correction." (Id. at 5-6, 18, 24.) Should a future lapse in awareness or communications by UP personnel (or agents acting on UP's behalf in connection with a construction project) result in impermissible disturbance or damage to cultural property, the Board will closely scrutinize UP's conduct and consider whether significant consequences are appropriate. The Board expects UP to take all necessary steps to ensure that cultural resources are not disturbed or damaged during the Section 106 process in future construction cases.
CONCLUSION
Construction and operation of the Line will introduce a new freight transportation option in the PAMZ for both current and potential future shippers. It will also facilitate the diversion of traffic from truck to rail, thereby increasing overall energy efficiency. With OEA's final recommended mitigation, there will be no potential for significant environmental impacts from construction and operation of the Line. After carefully considering the transportation merits and environmental issues, the Board, considering the entire record, finds that the petition for exemption to allow UP's construction and operation of the approximately six-mile line of railroad in Maricopa County described as Alternative 1 in the Draft and Final EAs should be granted, subject to compliance with the environmental and historic mitigation measures set forth in the Appendix to this decision.
This action, as conditioned, will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board exempts UP's construction and operation of the above-described rail line from the formal application procedures of 49 U.S.C. 10901.
2. The Board adopts the environmental and historic mitigation measures set forth in the Appendix to this decision and imposes them as conditions to the exemption granted herein.
3. Notice will be published in the Federal Register.
4. Petitions for reconsideration must be filed by April 2, 2026.
5. This decision is effective on the date of service.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, and Schultz.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ The digest constitutes no part of the decision of the Board but has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It may not be cited to or relied upon as precedent. See Pol'y Statement on Plain Language Digs. in Decisions, EP 696 (STB served Sept. 2, 2010).
2/ As noted in the petition, OEA granted a waiver of the requirement that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared. (Pet. 5. See also Draft EA 1-7 to 1-8 (describing process undertaken to determine that preparation of an EA, rather than an EIS, was appropriate).)
3/ Consulting parties include the individuals and entities specified in 36 CFR 800.2(c)(1)(4) and may also include other individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the project "due to the nature of their legal or economic relation to the undertaking or affected properties, or their concern with the undertaking's effects on historic properties." 36 CFR 800.2(c)(5).
4/ The APE is defined as "the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist." 36 CFR 800.16(d). Historic properties can include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, buildings, districts, objects, and structures, as well as traditional cultural properties and landscapes, and the term "historic property" includes properties of religious or cultural significance to Native American Tribes. (See Draft EA 3-7; Final EA 3-93.)
5/ As permitted by the regulation at 49 CFR 1105.10(d), OEA used an independent thirdparty consultant, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs), to assist OEA in conducting the environmental analysis for the PIRATE project.
6/ (See, e.g., Env't Comment EO-3866 (August 7, 2023 email from OEA to S. Anton, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, re upcoming field meeting and information learned); Env't Comment EO-3829 (August 23, 2023 email from Jacobs/OEA to UP re action items from first weekly call); Env't Comment EO-3833 (September 13, 2023 OEA report to SHPO and Section 106 Consulting Parties); Env't Comment EO-3868 (October 13, 2023 letter from Jacobs to SHPO attaching minutes of October 4, 2023 meeting with consulting parties re site damage update).)
7/ Section 110(k) provides that "[e]ach Federal agency shall ensure that the agency will not grant a loan, loan guarantee, permit, license, or other assistance to an applicant that, with intent to avoid the requirements of [Section 106 of NHPA], has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the grant would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, has allowed the significant adverse effect to occur, unless the agency, after consultation with the [Advisory Council on Historic Preservation], determines that circumstances justify granting the assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant."
8/ Given the finding that regulation here is not needed to protect shippers from an abuse of market power, the Board need not determine whether the transaction is limited in scope. See 49 U.S.C. 10502(a)(2).
9/ Chapter 5 describes the agency, tribal, and public outreach conducted by OEA leading to the issuance of the Draft EA. (See Draft EA 5-1 to 5-7.) That outreach included meetings with the towns of Queen Creek, Ariz., and Mesa to discuss potential traffic impacts of the PIRATE project. During an April 2022 meeting, Queen Creek presented a summary of population growth and traffic concerns and requested that OEA's review include a traffic impact analysis to evaluate potential safety and traffic impacts and the need for grade separations where necessary. Based upon the results of OEA's preliminary analysis, OEA recommended several mitigation measures to address traffic impacts at crossings, (see Draft EA 4-3 to 4-4 (describing MM-TS-1 through MM-TS-4)), but determined that traffic impacts did not necessitate gradeseparated crossings. (Id. at 3-64, 5-1 to 5-2, 5-3.) That analysis was recently updated with data from 2025, and as discussed below, the updated results do not affect OEA's determination that grade-separated crossings are not warranted.
10/ Comment submissions were received from two individuals, five agencies (one of which filed two submissions), one business, and UP. (Final EA, App. M at M-1.)
11/ Because population growth and development in the region have increased since the Draft EA was issued in May 2023, OEA prepared an updated traffic analysis based on 2025 conditions (in lieu of the data and assumptions from 2022 used in the initial Traffic Report). (Final EA 3-2; see, e.g., updated Traffic Report (Final EA, App. B, 2-4 to 2-6, 3-1).) The updated Traffic Report includes a grade separation analysis for the railroad crossings of roads within the study area. (Final EA 3-2.) That analysis concludes that none of the proposed crossings meet the criteria for grade separation. (Id. at 3-15 and citations therein.) Docket No. FD 36501
12/ OEA evaluated two Action Alternatives for the proposed project: Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Both alternatives include construction of a new wye (Y-like rail connection) at the Phoenix Subdivision and approximately 6.0 miles of rail line extending from the Phoenix Subdivision to industrial companies at the eastern end of the PAMZ. (Final EA iii; see id. at ivix (tbl. S-1).) OEA also evaluated the No-Action Alternative, under which UP would not construct and operate the rail line as proposed and rail service would not be available in the PAMZ. (Id. at iii.) Based on OEA's analysis and consultation with appropriate agencies, Native American Tribes, and other stakeholders, OEA concluded in the Final EA, that, of the two Action Alternatives, Alternative 1 would result in fewer impacts on the environment and recommends that the Board authorize Alternative 1 if the project is authorized. (Id. at xi.)
13/ The Board notes, in particular, that in the Final EA, OEA has recommended additional mitigation requiring UP to comply with commitments imposed during the Arizona Corporation Commission's railroad crossing review process (MM-TS-6), (see Final EA 3-14), and has expanded its recommended timing limits for train operations over the Line to minimize the impact to roadways and to address local concerns regarding traffic impacts at grade crossings (MM-TS-1), (see id. at 4-4).
* * *
Original text here: https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/DCMS_External_PROD/1773415845345/52822.pdf
President Trump Issues Executive Order on Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Home Construction
WASHINGTON, March 14 -- President Trump issued the following executive order on March 13, 2026:* * *
REMOVING REGULATORY BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOME CONSTRUCTION
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The American dream of homeownership depends on a dynamic housing market in which a varied inventory of new homes is built and renovated each year. Layers of unnecessary regulatory barriers, slow permitting processes, and onerous mandates at all levels of government have delayed construction, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 14 -- President Trump issued the following executive order on March 13, 2026: * * * REMOVING REGULATORY BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOME CONSTRUCTION By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose. The American dream of homeownership depends on a dynamic housing market in which a varied inventory of new homes is built and renovated each year. Layers of unnecessary regulatory barriers, slow permitting processes, and onerous mandates at all levels of government have delayed construction,restricted development, and driven up the costs of new housing. These constraints have made housing less affordable for many Americans.
It is the policy of my Administration to reduce regulatory barriers to building homes and to steward taxpayer dollars in a manner that promotes housing affordability.
Sec. 2. Targeting Federal Regulatory Barriers to Residential Development. (a) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall review and revise requirements related to stormwater, wetlands, lakes, rivers, and other bodies of water to reduce housing construction and ownership costs, streamline regulatory and agency decision-making processes, reduce property tax burdens, and increase insurability, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law. Such requirements shall include:
(i) the Construction General Permit for stormwater discharges from construction activity;
(ii) federally issued Total Maximum Daily Loads;
(iii) construction site and post-construction requirements for Municipal Separate Stormwater System permits;
(iv) Federal standards for permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1344, for the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States; and
(v) Federal standards for assumption of dredge and fill permitting by States and tribes under section 404(g) of CWA.
(b) The Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) shall, within their respective authorities, consider eliminating unduly burdensome rules and reforming programs that constrain residential development and impede housing affordability, especially the construction of affordable single-family homes as well as suburban and exurban neighborhoods, including, as needed:
(i) the Economic Development Administration's guidelines and investment priorities concerning development density;
(ii) the Department of Transportation's Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program;
(iii) the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing Program; and
(iv) the FHFA's guidelines and regulations regarding chattel lending for manufactured housing and incentivizing low-balance home mortgages.
(c) The Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Energy, and the Director of FHFA shall, within their respective authorities, take appropriate action to reform and, where appropriate, eliminate unduly burdensome or costly energy-efficiency, water-use, or alternative-energy requirements regarding housing, including manufactured housing, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with applicable law. Such action shall include reviewing and revising, as needed:
(i) the Energy Conservation Program's Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing;
(ii) the Adoption of Energy Efficiency Standards for New Construction of HUD- and USDA-Financed Housing;
(iii) residential building energy codes subject to review by the Secretary of Energy; and
(iv) water and energy efficiency improvement standards for FHFA's duty to serve underserved market properties.
Sec. 3. Streamlining Federal Permitting Requirements for Residential Development. (a) The Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality shall provide guidance to executive departments and agencies (agencies) on implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, including through the establishment, adoption, or application of categorical exclusions, in a manner that maximally exempts or reduces burdens on housing construction, preservation, adaptive re-use, and infrastructure that facilitates housing construction, such as roads, water, sewer, and other projects.
(b) The Chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation shall develop guidance on maximally exempting, or reducing burdens on, housing construction and infrastructure that facilitates housing construction, such as roads, water, sewer, and other projects under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act so that reporting requirements are no more burdensome than necessary.
Sec. 4. Boosting Housing Affordability Through State and Local Regulatory Best Practices. (a) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall develop and promulgate a series of regulatory best practices for State and local governments to promote housing construction and affordability, including:
(i) streamlining permitting processes for housing developments by, for example, capping permitting timelines and fees; allowing by-right development for single-family homes; limiting retroactive application of new or changed building codes; allowing third-party inspections and appropriate builder choice on certified entities for inspections and studies; and ensuring swift dispute resolution with government agencies and private parties regarding construction matters;
(ii) curtailing mandates that increase housing construction costs, such as green-energy building requirements or other energy-choice restrictions, non-evidence-based building codes, and unreasonable building-code-adoption timelines;
(iii) re-examining restrictions on the use of manufactured or modular housing on the basis of the construction method rather than objective standards for building and safety, aesthetic requirements, or prohibitions on construction when comparable site-built housing is permitted; and
(iv) removing arbitrary limitations on residential housing development beyond urban centers, such as urban growth boundaries, growth moratoria, and commuting penalties.
(b) The Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, within their respective authorities, take steps to revise, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, regulations, guidance, grant applications and requirements, technical assistance, and other relevant agency documents or practices to advance the best practices issued pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 5. Facilitating New Residential Construction in Opportunity Zones. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall jointly evaluate Administration actions to better align programs and incentives with the Opportunity Zone tax incentives to expand investment in single-family home construction, including considering lawful mechanisms to link grants, financing tools, or other incentives with new or increased investment in Qualified Opportunity Funds engaged in the development and sale of single-family homes.
(b) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall also assess opportunities to coordinate the Opportunity Zone incentives described in subsection (a) of this section with the New Markets Tax Credit under 26 U.S.C. 45D to promote single-family home construction in census tracts that qualify both as Qualified Opportunity Zones and as low-income communities for the purposes of the New Markets Tax Credit.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(e) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
DONALD J. TRUMP
* * *
Original text here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/removing-regulatory-barriers-to-affordable-home-construction/
Illegal Alien and Convicted Felon Sentenced to More Than 15 Years in Prison for Trafficking Cocaine Across US-Mexico Border
CLEVELAND, Ohio, March 14 -- The office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio posted the following news release on March 13, 2026:* * *
Illegal Alien and Convicted Felon Sentenced to More than 15 Years in Prison for Trafficking Cocaine Across US-Mexico Border
A Mexican national has been sentenced to federal prison for illegally entering the United States and then trafficking kilogram-quantities of cocaine in Northeast Ohio.
Jaime Ortega-Urquidi, 63, was sentenced to 188 months (15 years and 6 months) in prison by U.S. District Judge John R. Adams after pleading guilty in November ... Show Full Article CLEVELAND, Ohio, March 14 -- The office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio posted the following news release on March 13, 2026: * * * Illegal Alien and Convicted Felon Sentenced to More than 15 Years in Prison for Trafficking Cocaine Across US-Mexico Border A Mexican national has been sentenced to federal prison for illegally entering the United States and then trafficking kilogram-quantities of cocaine in Northeast Ohio. Jaime Ortega-Urquidi, 63, was sentenced to 188 months (15 years and 6 months) in prison by U.S. District Judge John R. Adams after pleading guilty in November2025 to the following charges:
* Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine, with Notice of Prior Serious Drug Felony Conviction; and
* Illegal Reentry of Alien Following Removal, with Notice of Prior Aggravated Felony Conviction.
According to court documents, on May 28, 2025, Lorain police officers conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle in which Ortega-Urquidi was a passenger. During the stop, a drug detection K-9 alerted to the odor of illegal drugs in the vehicle. Officers searched the vehicle and found cocaine weighing approximately two kilograms. Officers also seized more than $29,000 in cash. During further investigation into Ortega-Urquidi, law enforcement discovered he was part of an organization that smuggled kilograms of cocaine across the US-Mexico border. The organization then shipped the cocaine from Texas to Ohio, where Ortega-Urquidi distributed it to local drug dealers in the city of Lorain. Investigators also learned that Ortega-Urquidi was in the United States illegally at the time of his arrest. He was previously removed in October 2017, after serving a sentence for Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
The investigation was conducted by the FBI Cleveland Division, the Lorain Police Department, the U.S. Border Patrol-Sandusky Bay Station, and the Elyria Police Department.
The prosecution was led by Assistant United States Attorney James Lewis for the Northern District of Ohio.
This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations, and to protect communities from the perpetrators of violent crime.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndoh/pr/illegal-alien-and-convicted-felon-sentenced-more-15-years-prison-trafficking-cocaine
BLS Southeast Region Issues Report on Fatal Work Injuries in Georgia 2024
ATLANTA, Georgia, March 14 (TNSLrpt) -- Fatal Work Injuries in Georgia 2024 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Southeast Region - March 13, 2026* * *
Fatal work injuries totaled 170 in 2024 for Georgia, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Regional Commissioner Victoria G. Lee noted that the number of work-related fatalities in Georgia was down 11.5 percent from 192 in 2023. (See chart 1.) The fatal work injury rate was 3.4 fatalities per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers in 2024, a decrease from a rate of 4.0 in 2023. Nationwide, a total ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, March 14 (TNSLrpt) -- Fatal Work Injuries in Georgia 2024 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Southeast Region - March 13, 2026 * * * Fatal work injuries totaled 170 in 2024 for Georgia, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Regional Commissioner Victoria G. Lee noted that the number of work-related fatalities in Georgia was down 11.5 percent from 192 in 2023. (See chart 1.) The fatal work injury rate was 3.4 fatalities per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers in 2024, a decrease from a rate of 4.0 in 2023. Nationwide, a totalof 5,070 fatal work injuries were recorded in 2024, a 4.0-percent decrease from 5,283 in 2023. These data are from the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI).
* * *
Chart 1. Number of fatal occupational injuries by employee status, Georgia, 2015-24
* * *
Fatal event or exposure
* Transportation incidents (58) were the most frequent type of fatal event in Georgia, accounting for 34 percent of all fatal work injuries in the state. Nationally the share was 38 percent. Worker deaths from transportation incidents were down from 69 over the year (See chart 2 and table 1.)
* Contact incidents (40) accounted for 24 percent of Georgia worker fatalities; nationally the share was 15 percent.
* * *
Chart 2. Percent distribution of total fatal occupational injuries by event, United States and Georgia, 2024
* * *
Private industry
* The construction sector had the highest number of fatalities with 35, down from 37 the previous year. (See table 2.)
* Transportation incidents and fatal falls, slips, and trips each resulted in 10 fatalities among the 35 construction sector fatalities.
* The specialty trade contractors subsector accounted for 22 of the sector's fatal workplace injuries.
Occupation
* Transportation and material moving workers experienced the largest decrease (-14) in fatal work injuries over the year among the major occupational groups. (See table 3.)
* The transportation and material moving occupational group had the highest number of fatal workplace injuries with 42. Transportation incidents resulted in 28 fatalities among these workers. Motor vehicle operators accounted for 29 of the major group's 42 fatal workplace injuries.
Worker characteristics
* Wage and salary workers accounted for 79 percent of fatal workplace injuries in Georgia; the self-employed comprised the remaining 21 percent. (See chart 1 and table 4.) The most frequent fatal event for wage and salary workers was transportation incidents; contact incidents was the most frequent fatal event for self-employed workers.
* Males accounted for 94 percent of the work-related fatalities in Georgia and 92 percent nationally.
* Fatalities among non-Hispanic Black or African American workers declined by 16 from 57 the previous year.
* Workers 25-54 years old had a 25-percent decrease in worker fatalities from 120 in 2023 to 90 in 2024.
* * *
Technical Note
Background of the program. The Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), part of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Safety and Health Statistics (OSHS) program, is a count of all fatalities resulting from workplace injuries occurring in the U.S. during the calendar year. For technical information and definitions for the CFOI, see the national CFOI release Technical notes, the BLS Handbook of Methods, and the CFOI definitions.
Acknowledgments. BLS appreciates the efforts of all federal, state, local, and private sector entities that provided source documents used to identify fatal work injuries nationally. See the national CFOI release Technical Notes for details on cooperating entities.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
* * *
Table 1. Fatal occupational injuries by event or exposure, Georgia, 2023-24
Table 2. Fatal occupational injuries by industry, Georgia, 2023-24
Table 3. Fatal occupational injuries by occupation, Georgia, 2023-24
Table 4. Fatal occupational injuries by selected demographic characteristics, Georgia, 2023-24
* * *
View original text plus charts and tables here: https://www.bls.gov/regions/southeast/news-release/2026/fatalworkinjuries_georgia_20260313.htm
BLS Southeast Region Issues Report on Fatal Work Injuries in Florida 2024
ATLANTA, Georgia, March 14 (TNSLrpt) -- Fatal Work Injuries in Florida 2024 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Southeast Region - March 13, 2026* * *
Fatal work injuries totaled 284 in 2024 for Florida, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Regional Commissioner Victoria G. Lee noted that the number of work-related fatalities in Florida was down 7.2 percent from 306 in 2023. (See chart 1.) The fatal work injury rate was 2.9 fatalities per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers in 2024, a decrease from a rate of 3.1 in 2023. Nationwide, a total ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, March 14 (TNSLrpt) -- Fatal Work Injuries in Florida 2024 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Southeast Region - March 13, 2026 * * * Fatal work injuries totaled 284 in 2024 for Florida, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Regional Commissioner Victoria G. Lee noted that the number of work-related fatalities in Florida was down 7.2 percent from 306 in 2023. (See chart 1.) The fatal work injury rate was 2.9 fatalities per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers in 2024, a decrease from a rate of 3.1 in 2023. Nationwide, a totalof 5,070 fatal work injuries were recorded in 2024, a 4.0-percent decrease from 5,283 in 2023. These data are from the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI).
* * *
Chart 1. Number of fatal occupational injuries by employee status, Florida, 2015-24
* * *
Fatal event or exposure
* Transportation incidents (109) were the most frequent type of fatal event in Florida, accounting for 38 percent of all fatal work injuries in the state. Nationally the share was also 38 percent. Worker deaths from transportation incidents were up from 104 over the year (See chart 2 and table 1.)
* Falls, slips, and trips (66) accounted for 23 percent of Florida worker fatalities; nationally the share was 17 percent.
* * *
Chart 2. Percent distribution of total fatal occupational injuries by event, United States and Florida, 2024
* * *
Private industry
* The construction sector had the highest number of fatalities with 88, down from 92 the previous year. (See table 2.)
* Fatal falls, slips, and trips resulted in 39 of the 88 construction sector fatalities.
* The foundation, structure, and building exterior contractors industry group accounted for 22 of the sector's fatal workplace injuries.
Occupation
* Transportation and material moving workers experienced the largest decrease (-9) in fatal work injuries over the year among the major occupational groups. (See table 3.)
* The construction and extraction occupational group had the highest number of fatal workplace injuries with 82. Incidents involving falls, slips, and trips resulted in 34 fatalities among these workers. Construction laborers accounted for 18 of the major group's 82 fatal workplace injuries.
Worker characteristics
* Wage and salary workers accounted for 88 percent of fatal workplace injuries in Florida; the self-employed comprised the remaining 12 percent. (See chart 1 and table 4.) The most frequent fatal event for both wage and salary workers as well as self-employed workers was transportation incidents.
* Fatal workplace injuries among female workers decreased from 27 to 16, with transportation incidents accounting for 50 percent of fatal events in 2024.
* Hispanic or Latino workers accounted for 42 percent of those who died from a workplace injury. Nationwide, this group accounted for 24 percent of work-related deaths. White non-Hispanics accounted for 35 percent of work-related fatalities in Florida, compared to 56 percent nationally.
* Workers 45-54 years old had a decrease in worker fatalities from 66 in 2023 to 53 in 2024.
* * *
Technical Note
Background of the program. The Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), part of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Safety and Health Statistics (OSHS) program, is a count of all fatalities resulting from workplace injuries occurring in the U.S. during the calendar year. For technical information and definitions for the CFOI, see the national CFOI release Technical notes, the BLS Handbook of Methods, and the CFOI definitions.
Acknowledgments. BLS appreciates the efforts of all federal, state, local, and private sector entities that provided source documents used to identify fatal work injuries nationally. See the national CFOI release Technical Notes for details on cooperating entities.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
* * *
Table 1. Fatal occupational injuries by event or exposure, Florida, 2023-24
Table 2. Fatal occupational injuries by industry, Florida, 2023-24
Table 3. Fatal occupational injuries by occupation, Florida, 2023-24
Table 4. Fatal occupational injuries by selected demographic characteristics, Florida, 2023-24
* * *
View original text plus charts and tables here: https://www.bls.gov/regions/southeast/news-release/2026/fatalworkinjuries_florida_20260313.htm
BLS Midwest Region Issues Report on Business Employment Dynamics in Michigan Second Quarter 2025
CHICAGO, Illinois, March 14 (TNSLrpt) -- Business Employment Dynamics in Michigan Second Quarter 2025 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Midwest Region - March 13, 2026* * *
From March 2025 to June 2025, gross job gains from opening and expanding private-sector establishments in Michigan were 219,328, while gross job losses from closing and contracting private-sector establishments were 210,470, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Assistant Commissioner for Regional Operations Michael Hirniak noted that the difference between the number of gross ... Show Full Article CHICAGO, Illinois, March 14 (TNSLrpt) -- Business Employment Dynamics in Michigan Second Quarter 2025 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Midwest Region - March 13, 2026 * * * From March 2025 to June 2025, gross job gains from opening and expanding private-sector establishments in Michigan were 219,328, while gross job losses from closing and contracting private-sector establishments were 210,470, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Assistant Commissioner for Regional Operations Michael Hirniak noted that the difference between the number of grossjob gains and the number of gross job losses yielded a net employment gain of 8,858 jobs in the private sector during the second quarter of 2025. (See table 1.) During the previous quarter, gross job losses exceeded gross job gains by 2,118. (See chart 1.)
* * *
Chart 1. Private-sector gross job gains and losses in Michigan, June 2020-June 2025, seasonally adjusted
* * *
The change in the number of jobs over time is the net result of increases and decreases in employment that occur at all private businesses in the economy. Business Employment Dynamics (BED) statistics track these changes in employment at private-sector establishments from the third month of one quarter to the third month of the next. The difference between the number of gross job gains and the number of gross job losses is the net change in employment. (See the Business Employment Dynamics Technical Note.)
Gross job gains
In the second quarter of 2025, gross job gains represented 5.8 percent of private-sector employment in Michigan; nationally, gross job gains accounted for 5.7 percent of private-sector employment. (See chart 2.) Gross job gains are the sum of increases in employment due to expansions at existing establishments and the addition of new jobs at opening establishments. In Michigan, gross job gains at expanding establishments totaled 178,108 in the second quarter of 2025, an increase of 13,304 jobs compared to the previous quarter. Opening establishments accounted for 41,220 jobs gained in the second quarter of 2025, an increase of 5,322 jobs from the previous quarter.
* * *
Chart 2. Private-sector gross job gains as a percent of employment, United States and Michigan, June 2020-June 2025, seasonally adjusted
* * *
Gross job losses
In the second quarter of 2025, gross job losses represented 5.5 percent of private-sector employment in Michigan; nationally, gross job losses accounted for 6.0 percent of private-sector employment. (See chart 3.) Gross job losses are the result of contractions in employment at existing establishments and the loss of jobs at closing establishments. In Michigan, contracting establishments lost 174,473 jobs in the second quarter of 2025, an increase of 8,698 jobs from the prior quarter. Closing establishments lost 35,997 jobs, a decrease of 1,048 jobs from the previous quarter.
* * *
Chart 3. Private-sector gross job losses as a percent of employment, United States and Michigan, June 2020-June 2025, seasonally adjusted
* * *
Industries
Gross job gains exceeded gross job losses in 6 of the 11 published industry sectors in Michigan in the second quarter of 2025. Leisure and hospitality had the largest over-the-quarter net job increase, with a gain of 7,478 jobs. This was the result of 44,820 gross job gains and 37,342 gross job losses. The education and health services industry had a net gain of 6,935 jobs. Transportation and warehousing showed a net loss of 5,289 jobs, the largest loss of any sector in the state.
For more information
The BED data series include gross job gains and gross job losses by industry subsector, for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, as well as gross job gains and gross job losses at the firm level by employer size class. BED data for the states have been included in table 2 of this release. Additional information is available online at the Business Employment Dynamics homepage and the Business Employment Dynamics Summary.
* * *
The Business Employment Dynamics for Third Quarter 2025 are scheduled to be released on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. (ET).
* * *
Technical Note
The Business Employment Dynamics (BED) data are a product of a federal-state cooperative program known as Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). The BED data are compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) from existing QCEW records.
More information on formal definitions of the data used in this release, along with coverage, concepts, and methodology, can be found in the Business Employment Dynamics Technical Note.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
* * *
Table 1. Private-sector gross job gains and losses by industry, Michigan, seasonally adjusted
Table 2. Private-sector gross job gains and losses as a percent of total employment by state, seasonally adjusted
* * *
View original text plus charts and tables here: https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/news-release/2026/businessemploymentdynamics_michigan_20260313.htm