Public Comments on Proposed Federal Rules
Here's a look at public comments on proposed Federal Register rules
More Recent Headlines
Featured Stories
ASDWA Urges EPA to Strengthen Alignment Between Contaminant Lists and Improve Communication for UCMR 6
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
ASDWA 1300 Wilson Boulevard Suite 875 Arlington, VA 22209
703-812-9505 info@asdwa.org www.asdwa.org
August 13, 2026
Ms. Jessica Kramer Assistant Administrator, Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Revisions to Establish the Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) for Public Water Systems [Docket #EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469]
Dear Ms. Kramer:
The ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. ASDWA 1300 Wilson Boulevard Suite 875 Arlington, VA 22209 703-812-9505 info@asdwa.org www.asdwa.org August 13, 2026 Ms. Jessica Kramer Assistant Administrator, Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 Subject: Revisions to Establish the Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) for Public Water Systems [Docket #EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469] Dear Ms. Kramer: TheAssociation of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) is the professional non-profit association serving the administrators who lead the 57 state, tribal, and territorial drinking water primacy agencies. Primacy agencies are co-regulators with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the development and implementation of drinking water regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The primacy agencies' collective workforce of about 3,600 staff works tirelessly every day to ensure that the nation's 150,000 public water systems (PWS) provide safe drinking water every time consumers turn on the tap. ASDWA appreciates the opportunity to provide the perspective of primacy agencies on the proposed UCMR 6. These comments do not necessarily represent the specific views and concerns of individual primacy agencies, nor consensus from all members. EPA should consider individual comments from state primacy agencies, in addition to ASDWA's, to gain further perspective on this rulemaking.
UCMR Regulatory Process
ASDWA supports EPA's continued investigation of unregulated contaminants in UCMR 6. The UCMR program serves as a critical part of the regulatory development process established under Section 1412(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) by developing robust national occurrence data. ASDWA has consistently supported the framework established by the 1996 SDWA Amendments, including the CCL, UCMR, Regulatory Determinations, and Six-Year Review. Given the purpose of this framework, ASDWA encourages EPA to maintain the intended connection between the CCL and UCMR so contaminant selection, monitoring, and data collection can appropriately support future decision making. Only eight of the 30 contaminants proposed in UCMR 6 were identified on CCL 5, and 14 of the 30 proposed contaminants have never appeared on a prior CCL. ASDWA recognizes EPA's authority to include non-CCL contaminants through its standard prioritization process. However, we recommend that EPA strengthen the alignment between CCL development and UCMR contaminant selection so that collected national occurrence data can thoroughly inform future Regulatory Determinations.
Selected Contaminants PFAS ASDWA appreciates EPA's inclusion of the seven ultrashort organofluorine compounds in the proposed UCMR 6, four of which are PFAS and three of which are similarly structured compounds. We support EPA's continued commitment to addressing PFAS in drinking water in line with the 2019 PFAS Action Plan and other recent federal actions. Microplastics ASDWA supports EPA's decision to exclude microplastics from the proposed UCMR 6. This decision is consistent with the contaminant prioritization process and the purpose of utilizing UCMRs to collect occurrence data on contaminants with a validated analytical method at the time of publication. ASDWA encourages EPA to continue applying this same level of analytical discipline in future UCMR contaminant selection. ASDWA also recognizes the significant public interest in and concern about microplastics in drinking water. Accordingly, ASDWA supports EPA's commitment to further research microplastics and contaminant characteristics. This research, alongside the development of a well-vetted, validated analytical method and adequate lab capacity, is crucial to complete before microplastics are considered for a future UCMR. We recommend that EPA continue communicating with the public about potential health risks and the UCMR process in order to address public concern and clarify that the absence of microplastics from UCMR 6 does not reflect a lack of Agency attention to this issue. EPA listed microplastics and pharmaceuticals as two of four chemical groups on the proposed CCL 6. Since UCMRs are designed to collect occurrence data for individual contaminants, not broader chemical groups, EPA should expand upon the purpose of these groups and how they may impact UCMR contaminant selection and prioritization. Providing narrower definitions for these chemical groups would be conducive to identifying specific priority contaminants for monitoring and bridging the gap between CCLs, UCMRs, and Regulatory Determinations.
Contaminants from Previous UCMRs and Regulatory Determinations ASDWA appreciates EPA's explanation as to why 1,2,3,-trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) and chlorpyrifos oxon were included in the proposed UCMR 6 after being previously monitored in UCMR 3 and UCMR 4, respectively. The transparency around optimized analytical methods and justifications for new occurrence data provides valuable insight into the contaminant selection process. However, ASDWA observed that six other contaminants proposed for UCMR 6 have previously received negative regulatory determinations. Hexachlorobutadiene, naphthalene, and metribuzin each received a negative regulatory determination under Regulatory Determination 1 in 2003, while 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, and 2,6-dinitrotoluene received negative regulatory determinations under Regulatory Determination 2 in 2008. ASDWA understands that EPA may have proposed these contaminants for UCMR 6 because a significant amount of time has passed since these regulatory determinations were made and optimized analytical methods are now available. Yet the rationale behind why these contaminants are being revisited is not apparent in the proposed UCMR 6, nor in the Information Compendium for Candidate Contaminants for the Proposed Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule [Docket #EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469-0139]. ASDWA recommends that EPA explicitly address why the six contaminants with previous regulatory determinations are being revisited and share what new health effects information, data, or analytical methods call for monitoring under UCMR 6.
Communication and Coordination with States on UCMR 6 ASDWA recommends that EPA prioritize early and consistent communication with state drinking water programs and water systems throughout the implementation of UCMR 6. Some states have noted that, in previous UCMR cycles, system contact information became outdated due to personnel changes by the time quarterly data was received by EPA's contractors. EPA should maintain reliable communication channels and up-to-date points of contact to support implementation. Furthermore, EPA should clearly define the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in UCMR 6 implementation. Establishing clear expectations at the outset for states that have signed voluntary Partnership Agreements will prevent miscommunications among states, water systems, and EPA. Some states have also expressed interest in working with EPA to develop fact sheets for UCMR 6 contaminants with health reference levels, similar to fact sheets produced on lithium during UCMR 5. These materials would help primacy agencies and water systems interpret results and provide consistent messaging when responding to public inquiries about contaminants. Fact sheets could be especially relevant for contaminants that have generated significant public interest, e.g., the selected PFAS compounds, or, alternatively, discuss how UCMR monitoring fits into the larger SDWA regulatory process and share information about contaminants that were not selected for UCMR 6, like microplastics.
Data Management and Sampling Coordination ASDWA recommends that EPA coordinate with states before UCMR 6 monitoring begins to ensure that sampling information and data are compatible with SDWIS. Some states experienced challenges during UCMR 5 when inconsistent sampling IDs impacted entry into SDWIS and made it difficult to determine where samples had been collected. EPA should improve coordination on sampling data needs prior to implementation to prevent the need for significant staff time reformatting data or even resampling certain locations. In closing, ASDWA appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the proposed UCMR6 and hopes EPA takes this input into consideration when finalizing this proposed rule. We appreciate EPA's consideration of our comments and continued partnership. If you have any questions about these concerns or want to discuss comments further, please contact Lucy Terry (lterry@asdwa.org) or myself at aderosa@asdwa.org.
Sincerely,
Anthony DeRosa Executive Director Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)
CC: Jennifer McClain, OGWDW Eric Burneson, OGWDW
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469-0197
ASDWA 1300 Wilson Boulevard Suite 875 Arlington, VA 22209
703-812-9505 info@asdwa.org www.asdwa.org
August 13, 2026
Ms. Jessica Kramer Assistant Administrator, Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Revisions to Establish the Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) for Public Water Systems [Docket #EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469]
Dear Ms. Kramer:
The ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. ASDWA 1300 Wilson Boulevard Suite 875 Arlington, VA 22209 703-812-9505 info@asdwa.org www.asdwa.org August 13, 2026 Ms. Jessica Kramer Assistant Administrator, Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 Subject: Revisions to Establish the Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) for Public Water Systems [Docket #EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469] Dear Ms. Kramer: TheAssociation of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) is the professional non-profit association serving the administrators who lead the 57 state, tribal, and territorial drinking water primacy agencies. Primacy agencies are co-regulators with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the development and implementation of drinking water regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The primacy agencies' collective workforce of about 3,600 staff works tirelessly every day to ensure that the nation's 150,000 public water systems (PWS) provide safe drinking water every time consumers turn on the tap. ASDWA appreciates the opportunity to provide the perspective of primacy agencies on the proposed UCMR 6. These comments do not necessarily represent the specific views and concerns of individual primacy agencies, nor consensus from all members. EPA should consider individual comments from state primacy agencies, in addition to ASDWA's, to gain further perspective on this rulemaking.
UCMR Regulatory Process
ASDWA supports EPA's continued investigation of unregulated contaminants in UCMR 6. The UCMR program serves as a critical part of the regulatory development process established under Section 1412(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) by developing robust national occurrence data. ASDWA has consistently supported the framework established by the 1996 SDWA Amendments, including the CCL, UCMR, Regulatory Determinations, and Six-Year Review. Given the purpose of this framework, ASDWA encourages EPA to maintain the intended connection between the CCL and UCMR so contaminant selection, monitoring, and data collection can appropriately support future decision making. Only eight of the 30 contaminants proposed in UCMR 6 were identified on CCL 5, and 14 of the 30 proposed contaminants have never appeared on a prior CCL. ASDWA recognizes EPA's authority to include non-CCL contaminants through its standard prioritization process. However, we recommend that EPA strengthen the alignment between CCL development and UCMR contaminant selection so that collected national occurrence data can thoroughly inform future Regulatory Determinations.
Selected Contaminants PFAS ASDWA appreciates EPA's inclusion of the seven ultrashort organofluorine compounds in the proposed UCMR 6, four of which are PFAS and three of which are similarly structured compounds. We support EPA's continued commitment to addressing PFAS in drinking water in line with the 2019 PFAS Action Plan and other recent federal actions. Microplastics ASDWA supports EPA's decision to exclude microplastics from the proposed UCMR 6. This decision is consistent with the contaminant prioritization process and the purpose of utilizing UCMRs to collect occurrence data on contaminants with a validated analytical method at the time of publication. ASDWA encourages EPA to continue applying this same level of analytical discipline in future UCMR contaminant selection. ASDWA also recognizes the significant public interest in and concern about microplastics in drinking water. Accordingly, ASDWA supports EPA's commitment to further research microplastics and contaminant characteristics. This research, alongside the development of a well-vetted, validated analytical method and adequate lab capacity, is crucial to complete before microplastics are considered for a future UCMR. We recommend that EPA continue communicating with the public about potential health risks and the UCMR process in order to address public concern and clarify that the absence of microplastics from UCMR 6 does not reflect a lack of Agency attention to this issue. EPA listed microplastics and pharmaceuticals as two of four chemical groups on the proposed CCL 6. Since UCMRs are designed to collect occurrence data for individual contaminants, not broader chemical groups, EPA should expand upon the purpose of these groups and how they may impact UCMR contaminant selection and prioritization. Providing narrower definitions for these chemical groups would be conducive to identifying specific priority contaminants for monitoring and bridging the gap between CCLs, UCMRs, and Regulatory Determinations.
Contaminants from Previous UCMRs and Regulatory Determinations ASDWA appreciates EPA's explanation as to why 1,2,3,-trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) and chlorpyrifos oxon were included in the proposed UCMR 6 after being previously monitored in UCMR 3 and UCMR 4, respectively. The transparency around optimized analytical methods and justifications for new occurrence data provides valuable insight into the contaminant selection process. However, ASDWA observed that six other contaminants proposed for UCMR 6 have previously received negative regulatory determinations. Hexachlorobutadiene, naphthalene, and metribuzin each received a negative regulatory determination under Regulatory Determination 1 in 2003, while 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, and 2,6-dinitrotoluene received negative regulatory determinations under Regulatory Determination 2 in 2008. ASDWA understands that EPA may have proposed these contaminants for UCMR 6 because a significant amount of time has passed since these regulatory determinations were made and optimized analytical methods are now available. Yet the rationale behind why these contaminants are being revisited is not apparent in the proposed UCMR 6, nor in the Information Compendium for Candidate Contaminants for the Proposed Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule [Docket #EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469-0139]. ASDWA recommends that EPA explicitly address why the six contaminants with previous regulatory determinations are being revisited and share what new health effects information, data, or analytical methods call for monitoring under UCMR 6.
Communication and Coordination with States on UCMR 6 ASDWA recommends that EPA prioritize early and consistent communication with state drinking water programs and water systems throughout the implementation of UCMR 6. Some states have noted that, in previous UCMR cycles, system contact information became outdated due to personnel changes by the time quarterly data was received by EPA's contractors. EPA should maintain reliable communication channels and up-to-date points of contact to support implementation. Furthermore, EPA should clearly define the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in UCMR 6 implementation. Establishing clear expectations at the outset for states that have signed voluntary Partnership Agreements will prevent miscommunications among states, water systems, and EPA. Some states have also expressed interest in working with EPA to develop fact sheets for UCMR 6 contaminants with health reference levels, similar to fact sheets produced on lithium during UCMR 5. These materials would help primacy agencies and water systems interpret results and provide consistent messaging when responding to public inquiries about contaminants. Fact sheets could be especially relevant for contaminants that have generated significant public interest, e.g., the selected PFAS compounds, or, alternatively, discuss how UCMR monitoring fits into the larger SDWA regulatory process and share information about contaminants that were not selected for UCMR 6, like microplastics.
Data Management and Sampling Coordination ASDWA recommends that EPA coordinate with states before UCMR 6 monitoring begins to ensure that sampling information and data are compatible with SDWIS. Some states experienced challenges during UCMR 5 when inconsistent sampling IDs impacted entry into SDWIS and made it difficult to determine where samples had been collected. EPA should improve coordination on sampling data needs prior to implementation to prevent the need for significant staff time reformatting data or even resampling certain locations. In closing, ASDWA appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the proposed UCMR6 and hopes EPA takes this input into consideration when finalizing this proposed rule. We appreciate EPA's consideration of our comments and continued partnership. If you have any questions about these concerns or want to discuss comments further, please contact Lucy Terry (lterry@asdwa.org) or myself at aderosa@asdwa.org.
Sincerely,
Anthony DeRosa Executive Director Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)
CC: Jennifer McClain, OGWDW Eric Burneson, OGWDW
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0469-0197
American Hospital Association Urges FDA to Clarify Regulations on Digital Health and AI Innovation
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
August 13, 2026
Michelle Tarver
Director
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Ave.
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Submitted Electronically
RE: FDA-2018-N-1910 Request for Input: Development of 21st Century Cures Act
Section 3060 Required Report
Dear Director Tarver,
On behalf of our nearly 5,000 member hospitals, health systems and other healthcare organizations, our ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. August 13, 2026 Michelle Tarver Director Center for Devices and Radiological Health Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20993 Submitted Electronically RE: FDA-2018-N-1910 Request for Input: Development of 21st Century Cures Act Section 3060 Required Report Dear Director Tarver, On behalf of our nearly 5,000 member hospitals, health systems and other healthcare organizations, ourclinician partners - including more than 270,000 affiliated physicians, 2 million nurses and other caregivers - and the 43,000 healthcare leaders who belong to our professional membership groups, the American Hospital Association (AHA) appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) report on the risks and benefits to health and safety that are associated with non-device software as required under Section 3060 of the 21st Century Cures Act.
Advancements in digital health technology, artificial intelligence (AI), wellness applications and wearable devices continue to transform care delivery. These changes pose novel questions on the applicability of medical device regulation. The AHA appreciates that the FDA has been updating its regulations and guidance on what constitutes a medical device and a non-device software function, including updated guidance on Clinical Decision Support (CDS) software and general wellness products released in January 2026.
1,2 However, the FDA can help advance additional innovation by further clarifying its guidance, particularly with respect to appropriate guardrails to ensure patient safety.
1
https://www.fda.gov/media/109618/download
2
https://www.fda.gov/media/90652/download
Director Michelle Tarver
August 13, 2026
Page 2 of 5
Specifically, we recommend that the FDA:
Permanently adopt CDS flexibilities that generate only one clinical recommendation.
Clarify its General Wellness Guidance, removing references to allowing non-device general wellness applications to make recommendations on escalation to a healthcare provider.
Continue to update guidance, education and other materials to account for novel AI applications, including generative AI.
Below are our detailed comments.
Clinical Decision Support Software
Hospitals and health systems have seen the benefits of CDS tools in supporting quality improvement, improving safety and increasing efficiency. Our members deploy CDS algorithms to analyze large amounts of clinical data to generate patient-specific care recommendations. These recommendations support provider decision-making but ultimately are only one of many inputs, including the healthcare professional's (HCP) own clinical judgment. The AHA has long urged that the FDA adopt policies that do not inadvertently impose barriers to CDS adoption.
Section 3060(a) of the Cures Act sought to deter over-regulation by establishing criteria to exempt this type of low-risk decision support software from FDA regulation while appropriately ensuring FDA's continued authority to regulate software that replaces rather than supports the HCP's decision-making. Section 520(o)(1)(E) outlines four criteria that would exempt manufacturers and developers from FDA oversight as medical devices:
Criterion 1: Not intended to acquire, process or analyze a medical image or signal from an in vitro diagnostic device or a pattern or signal from a signal acquisition system.
Criterion 2: Displaying, analyzing or printing medical information about a patient or other medical information (such as peer-reviewed clinical studies and clinical practice guidelines).
Criterion 3: Supporting or providing recommendations to an HCP about prevention, diagnosis or treatment of a disease or condition.
Criterion 4: Intended for the purpose of enabling an HCP to independently review the basis for the recommendations that such software presents so that it is not the intent that the HCP rely primarily on any of such recommendations to make a clinical diagnosis or treatment decision regarding an individual patient.
The AHA supports the FDA's January 2026 guidance providing enforcement discretion for certain CDS software functions that produce only one clinical recommendation under Criterion 3. Specifically, the new guidance states: "If only one option is clinically appropriate and the software function otherwise meets all criteria under section 520(o)(1)(E), FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion (meaning that FDA does not intend to enforce requirements under the FD&C Act) for such functions."
We respectfully urge the FDA to make this flexibility permanent in its guidance rather than treating it as enforcement discretion.
General Wellness Applications
Wellness, health and lifestyle technologies have expanded rapidly. These types of devices have the potential to support consumer engagement in healthy activities to prevent the onset of conditions, like chronic disease. Many of the FDA's updates to its general wellness product guidance provide appropriate flexibilities to support innovation. However, the AHA recommends two clarifications to help bolster patient safety.
First, the AHA recommends the FDA consider developing additional guidance and educational resources on labeling wellness products to help mitigate potential confusion for consumers. The latest general wellness product guidance document adds a section on potential exemption applicability for devices that provide physiological data. Specifically, the agency states: "FDA may consider certain products that use non-invasive sensing (e.g., optical sensing) to estimate, infer, or output physiologic parameters (e.g., blood pressure, oxygen saturation, blood glucose, heart rate variability) to be general wellness products when such outputs are intended solely for wellness uses."
Products could be treated as exempt from medical device regulations if they are not intended for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, prevention or treatment of a disease or condition. However, for consumers, there can be confusion about the distinction between medical device and non-medical device applications that transmit similar types of physiological data, which have different validation processes and uses. We encourage the FDA to consider developing guidance addressing this potential issue in coordination with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC has a broad mandate to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and the FTC and FDA share jurisdiction over marketing of certain health-related products (including devices).
Second, we encourage the FDA to either clarify or remove the guidance regarding allowing non-device general wellness applications to recommend escalation to a healthcare provider. The January 2026 guidance indicates that general wellness products may provide notifications to users on when follow-up with a clinician may be beneficial. Specifically, it states:
"For purposes of this guidance, a product may be considered a general wellness product even if it includes a notification informing a user that evaluation by a healthcare professional may be helpful when outputs fall outside ranges appropriate for general wellness use, provided that such notifications:
do not identify or name a specific disease or medical condition;
do not characterize the output as abnormal, pathological, or diagnostic;
do not include clinical thresholds, diagnoses, or treatment recommendations; and
do not provide ongoing alerts or monitoring intended to manage a disease or condition."
A wellness product that provides feedback on ranges that are "outside ranges appropriate for general wellness use" may inadvertently expand a product's scope beyond its intended use. Additionally, it is unclear how either consumers or healthcare providers can use a recommendation to consult a clinician if the wellness product also cannot state the reading is abnormal, what thresholds for escalation it is using or what potential medical issue is being detected. We recommend the FDA consider addressing these issues in additional guidance or remove the section altogether.
Artificial Intelligence
While the request for information focuses on non-device software applications, we do want to take the opportunity to reiterate comments we made previously on AI-enabled devices.3 AI-enabled devices offer tremendous promise for improved patient outcomes and quality of life. At the same time, they also pose novel challenges - including model bias, hallucinations and model drift - that are not yet fully accounted for in existing medical device frameworks. AI tools are inherently designed to be agile and adaptive, taking in new data points, discerning patterns and continually updating to improve model accuracy. This is especially true for generative AI. As this technology continues to evolve, we anticipate there will continue to be questions about which applications constitute medical device versus non-device function.
In general, the AHA supports AI policy frameworks that balance flexibility to drive market-based innovations with appropriate safeguards to protect privacy and patient safety. As the FDA considers future policy approaches to measuring and evaluating AI-enabled medical device performance, we encourage the agency to:
Continue to develop educational materials, update guidance documents and provide FAQs with examples on medical device versus non-medical device applications.
Pursue risk-based post-deployment measurement and evaluation standards for AI-enabled medical device vendors and developers.
Synchronize measurement and evaluation activities with existing frameworks.
Align incentives and address infrastructure barriers to measurement and evaluation.
3
https://www.aha.org/lettercomment/2025-12-01-aha-letter-fda-ai-enabled-medical-devices
We look forward to working with the FDA to ensure the agency's regulatory approach to implementing Section 3060(a) prioritizes patient safety while allowing hospitals and health systems to continue to implement innovative tools. Please contact me if you have questions, or feel free to have a member of your team contact Jennifer Holloman, AHA director of health IT policy, at jholloman@aha.org.
Sincerely,
/s/
Ashley Thompson
Senior Vice President
Public Policy Analysis and Development
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FDA-2018-N-1910-0383
August 13, 2026
Michelle Tarver
Director
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Ave.
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Submitted Electronically
RE: FDA-2018-N-1910 Request for Input: Development of 21st Century Cures Act
Section 3060 Required Report
Dear Director Tarver,
On behalf of our nearly 5,000 member hospitals, health systems and other healthcare organizations, our ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. August 13, 2026 Michelle Tarver Director Center for Devices and Radiological Health Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20993 Submitted Electronically RE: FDA-2018-N-1910 Request for Input: Development of 21st Century Cures Act Section 3060 Required Report Dear Director Tarver, On behalf of our nearly 5,000 member hospitals, health systems and other healthcare organizations, ourclinician partners - including more than 270,000 affiliated physicians, 2 million nurses and other caregivers - and the 43,000 healthcare leaders who belong to our professional membership groups, the American Hospital Association (AHA) appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) report on the risks and benefits to health and safety that are associated with non-device software as required under Section 3060 of the 21st Century Cures Act.
Advancements in digital health technology, artificial intelligence (AI), wellness applications and wearable devices continue to transform care delivery. These changes pose novel questions on the applicability of medical device regulation. The AHA appreciates that the FDA has been updating its regulations and guidance on what constitutes a medical device and a non-device software function, including updated guidance on Clinical Decision Support (CDS) software and general wellness products released in January 2026.
1,2 However, the FDA can help advance additional innovation by further clarifying its guidance, particularly with respect to appropriate guardrails to ensure patient safety.
1
https://www.fda.gov/media/109618/download
2
https://www.fda.gov/media/90652/download
Director Michelle Tarver
August 13, 2026
Page 2 of 5
Specifically, we recommend that the FDA:
Permanently adopt CDS flexibilities that generate only one clinical recommendation.
Clarify its General Wellness Guidance, removing references to allowing non-device general wellness applications to make recommendations on escalation to a healthcare provider.
Continue to update guidance, education and other materials to account for novel AI applications, including generative AI.
Below are our detailed comments.
Clinical Decision Support Software
Hospitals and health systems have seen the benefits of CDS tools in supporting quality improvement, improving safety and increasing efficiency. Our members deploy CDS algorithms to analyze large amounts of clinical data to generate patient-specific care recommendations. These recommendations support provider decision-making but ultimately are only one of many inputs, including the healthcare professional's (HCP) own clinical judgment. The AHA has long urged that the FDA adopt policies that do not inadvertently impose barriers to CDS adoption.
Section 3060(a) of the Cures Act sought to deter over-regulation by establishing criteria to exempt this type of low-risk decision support software from FDA regulation while appropriately ensuring FDA's continued authority to regulate software that replaces rather than supports the HCP's decision-making. Section 520(o)(1)(E) outlines four criteria that would exempt manufacturers and developers from FDA oversight as medical devices:
Criterion 1: Not intended to acquire, process or analyze a medical image or signal from an in vitro diagnostic device or a pattern or signal from a signal acquisition system.
Criterion 2: Displaying, analyzing or printing medical information about a patient or other medical information (such as peer-reviewed clinical studies and clinical practice guidelines).
Criterion 3: Supporting or providing recommendations to an HCP about prevention, diagnosis or treatment of a disease or condition.
Criterion 4: Intended for the purpose of enabling an HCP to independently review the basis for the recommendations that such software presents so that it is not the intent that the HCP rely primarily on any of such recommendations to make a clinical diagnosis or treatment decision regarding an individual patient.
The AHA supports the FDA's January 2026 guidance providing enforcement discretion for certain CDS software functions that produce only one clinical recommendation under Criterion 3. Specifically, the new guidance states: "If only one option is clinically appropriate and the software function otherwise meets all criteria under section 520(o)(1)(E), FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion (meaning that FDA does not intend to enforce requirements under the FD&C Act) for such functions."
We respectfully urge the FDA to make this flexibility permanent in its guidance rather than treating it as enforcement discretion.
General Wellness Applications
Wellness, health and lifestyle technologies have expanded rapidly. These types of devices have the potential to support consumer engagement in healthy activities to prevent the onset of conditions, like chronic disease. Many of the FDA's updates to its general wellness product guidance provide appropriate flexibilities to support innovation. However, the AHA recommends two clarifications to help bolster patient safety.
First, the AHA recommends the FDA consider developing additional guidance and educational resources on labeling wellness products to help mitigate potential confusion for consumers. The latest general wellness product guidance document adds a section on potential exemption applicability for devices that provide physiological data. Specifically, the agency states: "FDA may consider certain products that use non-invasive sensing (e.g., optical sensing) to estimate, infer, or output physiologic parameters (e.g., blood pressure, oxygen saturation, blood glucose, heart rate variability) to be general wellness products when such outputs are intended solely for wellness uses."
Products could be treated as exempt from medical device regulations if they are not intended for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, prevention or treatment of a disease or condition. However, for consumers, there can be confusion about the distinction between medical device and non-medical device applications that transmit similar types of physiological data, which have different validation processes and uses. We encourage the FDA to consider developing guidance addressing this potential issue in coordination with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC has a broad mandate to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and the FTC and FDA share jurisdiction over marketing of certain health-related products (including devices).
Second, we encourage the FDA to either clarify or remove the guidance regarding allowing non-device general wellness applications to recommend escalation to a healthcare provider. The January 2026 guidance indicates that general wellness products may provide notifications to users on when follow-up with a clinician may be beneficial. Specifically, it states:
"For purposes of this guidance, a product may be considered a general wellness product even if it includes a notification informing a user that evaluation by a healthcare professional may be helpful when outputs fall outside ranges appropriate for general wellness use, provided that such notifications:
do not identify or name a specific disease or medical condition;
do not characterize the output as abnormal, pathological, or diagnostic;
do not include clinical thresholds, diagnoses, or treatment recommendations; and
do not provide ongoing alerts or monitoring intended to manage a disease or condition."
A wellness product that provides feedback on ranges that are "outside ranges appropriate for general wellness use" may inadvertently expand a product's scope beyond its intended use. Additionally, it is unclear how either consumers or healthcare providers can use a recommendation to consult a clinician if the wellness product also cannot state the reading is abnormal, what thresholds for escalation it is using or what potential medical issue is being detected. We recommend the FDA consider addressing these issues in additional guidance or remove the section altogether.
Artificial Intelligence
While the request for information focuses on non-device software applications, we do want to take the opportunity to reiterate comments we made previously on AI-enabled devices.3 AI-enabled devices offer tremendous promise for improved patient outcomes and quality of life. At the same time, they also pose novel challenges - including model bias, hallucinations and model drift - that are not yet fully accounted for in existing medical device frameworks. AI tools are inherently designed to be agile and adaptive, taking in new data points, discerning patterns and continually updating to improve model accuracy. This is especially true for generative AI. As this technology continues to evolve, we anticipate there will continue to be questions about which applications constitute medical device versus non-device function.
In general, the AHA supports AI policy frameworks that balance flexibility to drive market-based innovations with appropriate safeguards to protect privacy and patient safety. As the FDA considers future policy approaches to measuring and evaluating AI-enabled medical device performance, we encourage the agency to:
Continue to develop educational materials, update guidance documents and provide FAQs with examples on medical device versus non-medical device applications.
Pursue risk-based post-deployment measurement and evaluation standards for AI-enabled medical device vendors and developers.
Synchronize measurement and evaluation activities with existing frameworks.
Align incentives and address infrastructure barriers to measurement and evaluation.
3
https://www.aha.org/lettercomment/2025-12-01-aha-letter-fda-ai-enabled-medical-devices
We look forward to working with the FDA to ensure the agency's regulatory approach to implementing Section 3060(a) prioritizes patient safety while allowing hospitals and health systems to continue to implement innovative tools. Please contact me if you have questions, or feel free to have a member of your team contact Jennifer Holloman, AHA director of health IT policy, at jholloman@aha.org.
Sincerely,
/s/
Ashley Thompson
Senior Vice President
Public Policy Analysis and Development
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FDA-2018-N-1910-0383
American Association of Airport Executives: FAA Calls for Public Comments on Draft Airport Improvement Program Handbook
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
August 17, 2026
William Garrison
Acting Director
Office of Airport Planning and Programming
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20591
RE:
Federal Aviation Administration; Request for Public Comment
Notice of Draft FAA Order 5100-38E, Airport Improvement Program Handbook
Docket No. FAA-2026-4006 (May 19, 2026)
Dear Mr. Garrison:
The American Association of Airport Executives ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. August 17, 2026 William Garrison Acting Director Office of Airport Planning and Programming Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591 RE: Federal Aviation Administration; Request for Public Comment Notice of Draft FAA Order 5100-38E, Airport Improvement Program Handbook Docket No. FAA-2026-4006 (May 19, 2026) Dear Mr. Garrison: The American Association of Airport Executives(AAAE), which represents over 12,000 members serving nearly 875 airports across the country, appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback in response to the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) request for public comment on draft FAA Order 5100.38E, "Airport Improvement Program Handbook" ("Draft AIP Handbook"), which is the primary guide for the FAA's funding of airport development projects under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).1 The AIP is a critical funding program for airport sponsors to implement their capital programs, especially critical safety-enhancing airfield projects, and we are pleased to share our unique perspective on the proposed AIP Handbook update.
Introduction and Summary of Recommendations
We generally support the FAA's stated objectives with the Draft AIP Handbook, which include clarifying statutory requirements, eliminating redundancies, creating an easily updated structure, increasing opportunities for efficiency, and delegating more decision-making to FAA field offices.2 However, AAAE members expressed several concerns. First, despite countless hours reviewing the draft document, the lack of any change summary from the FAA made it difficult to understand the scope and nature of the changes and whether the document fulfills the FAA's stated objectives. Second, while we support delegating decision-making to FAA field offices, we are concerned that the recent reduction in FAA staffing may lead to slower review times and further delays than what airport sponsors already experience. Third, although we appreciate the FAA adopting several efficiency improvements, AAAE believes additional changes are needed to streamline the grantmaking process.1 Notice of Draft FAA Order 5100-38E, Airport Improvement Program Handbook, 91 Fed. Reg. 29247 (May 19, 2026) (request for public comment).2 Fed. Aviation Admin., Airport Improvement Program Handbook i-i (2026) (hereinafter "Draft AIP Handbook").
From AAAE's understanding of the proposed changes, we believe that the FAA should take the following actions to simplify certain AIP processes, improve the usability of the document, and ensure its stated objectives are accomplished:
The FAA should (a) provide a summary of changes made in the Draft AIP Handbook and an opportunity to comment on the changes and (b) educate airport sponsors on specific changes that the FAA adopts in the final document.
The FAA should eliminate or relax its requirement that airport sponsors demonstrate an "actual need" or justification for each proposed project before an AIP entitlement grant may be awarded. At the very least, the FAA should simplify determinations that certain types of projects have the necessary justification and an actual need.
The FAA should (a) limit the authority of field offices to require a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for "any" project and (b) increase the threshold that determines when a BCA is required for a project.
The FAA should provide increased flexibility, discretion, and decision-making authority to FAA field offices to accelerate reviews, and airport sponsors must be given an appeal option in case that discretion is abused or applied inconsistently.
The FAA must ensure adequate staffing levels in its field offices commensurate with increased responsibilities so that the handbook's objectives are achieved.
The FAA should adopt the proposal to allow self-certification of eligible costs for terminal projects without limiting this self-certification option to projects that use $10 million or less in passenger facility charge (PFC) revenue.
The FAA should eliminate the new justification requirement that only allows AIP funding for reconstruction or rehabilitation of a primary runway if the runway is within 120 percent of the runway length needed by the airport's "critical aircraft" (unless a specific exception applies).
The FAA should eliminate the new noise exposure map (NEM) annual certification requirement as a condition of receiving a grant for a noise mitigation project and address other questions regarding required documentation to obtain a grant for these projects.
The FAA should (a) set deadlines for its field offices to complete the various reviews associated with AIP grants and (b) provide the expected review duration for each type of approval.
In addition to the recommendations provided in this letter, AAAE developed and provided dozens of other specific comments to the Draft AIP Handbook. Attached is an Excel spreadsheet with those comments, which are more detailed and intended to, among other things, identify ambiguous instructions to FAA field offices; identify conflicts between the draft document and statutes and other FAA guidance documents; improve the clarity and application of specific policies; and ensure airport sponsors understand various FAA requirements associated with securing AIP grants. Aside from our comments, we urge the FAA to continue to engage and communicate with AAAE and the industry as the agency transitions to Order 5100.38E. This will be important as airport sponsors need education on the updated handbook to ensure they understand the processes and requirements for access to critical AIP funding.
AAAE's Recommendations for FAA
Summary of AIP Handbook Changes
1. The FAA should (a) provide a summary of changes made in the Draft AIP Handbook and an opportunity to comment on the changes and (b) educate airport sponsors on specific changes that the FAA adopts in the final document.
One of the major concerns that AAAE heard from its members was the lack of any summary of changes between the current AIP Handbook (Order 5100.38D) and the Draft AIP Handbook (Order 5100.38E). On its website, the FAA has listed a "Draft Order 5100.38E, AIP Handbook: Key Updates (coming soon)" marker since the draft document was released in May.3 To date, the FAA has not posted any comparison of the two handbooks on its website despite the significance of the changes made. There are also no redlines included in the Draft AIP Handbook even though it is a complete rewrite and has 274 fewer pages than the version released in 2019. Overall, it has been very challenging for AAAE and the airport community to understand what changes have been made in the document, especially from a policy perspective. In light of these concerns, AAAE urges the FAA to release a summary of changes to the current AIP Handbook as soon as possible and offer another opportunity to comment on the changes that have been made. This could be in the form of a crosswalk document that details changes between current order and the draft document (similar to the Excel spreadsheet that was provided to industry when Change 1 to Order 5100.38D was released). The summary is necessary to help airport sponsors understand the Draft AIP Handbook, including changes incorporated from program guidance letters (PGLs) and other updated FAA documents. In addition, we highly encourage the FAA to engage with industry, through conferences and other forms of outreach, to answer questions and educate the community on the changes to ensure a successful transition to Order 5100.38E.
3. Fed. Aviation Admin., Draft AIP Handbook, Order 5100.38E (May 22, 2026), https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_handbook/draft.
Mr. William Garrison
August 17, 2026 | Page 4 of 12
Project Justification and Actual Need Requirements
2. The FAA should eliminate or relax its requirement that airport sponsors demonstrate an "actual need" or justification for each proposed project before an AIP entitlement grant may be awarded.
AAAE strongly disagrees with the FAA's position that an airport sponsor must demonstrate a justification and "actual need" to use AIP entitlement funds for an eligible project. In explaining its grant authority in the Draft AIP Handbook, FAA states that "if the FAA determines that a project is eligible and justified at that airport, then the FAA may fund the proposed project in whole or in part."4 For each proposed project, the justification test requires an FAA field office to ensure (a) the project advances an AIP policy; (b) an actual need for the project exists; and (c) the project scope is appropriate.5 FAA explains the test is a needs-based determination delegated to the agency by 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47103, which requires the development of the biennial National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), and Sec. 47104, which grants the FAA the general authority to issue AIP grants "[t]o maintain a safe and efficient nationwide system of public-use airports that meets the present and future needs of civil aeronautics." Both the statutory framework and its legislative history confirm that Congress never intended to require airport sponsors to demonstrate project justification before receiving AIP entitlement funds. First, Congress did not require an airport sponsor to demonstrate an actual need in the statutes governing the issuance of grants. Under Sec. 47105, Congress allows a sponsor to apply for a grant if the sponsor (a) proposes a project for an airport identified in the NPIAS; (b) submits a proposed project description; (c) proposes an eligible "airport development" project, as defined in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47102(3); (d) proposes a project that complies with any applicable FAA technical standards, such as airport lighting guidance; and (e) provides other information requested by the FAA.6 Section 47106 outlines the factors the FAA must consider when evaluating the application. While one of the criteria is for the FAA to ensure the project "contribute[s] to carrying out this subchapter," Congress has outlined its policies and priorities for AIP, which are extremely broad, such as improving airport safety, security, and capacity; protecting the environment; and minimizing noise impacts; among other things.7 Second, under the statute, there are only two extremely nuanced cases where FAA must apply a "justification" or "airside needs test" requirement for a proposed project.8 The omission of these requirements-from the specific grant application requirements in Sec. 47105, grant approval conditions in Sec. 47106, and other provisions in Title 49 of the U.S. Code-demonstrates that Congress's intent is to not require the FAA to determine whether an airport sponsor has an actual need or justification for a proposed project more generally. Third, while we recognize the FAA's need to understand the justification for a project before awarding a discretionary grant, this same rationale does not apply to entitlement grants. Under Sec. 47114, which governs apportionments (also known as entitlements), Congress provided that the Secretary of Transportation "shall" apportion funds to specific airports on an annual basis. If the project is eligible, and the airport sponsor has the statutory right to the funds, we do not believe it is appropriate for the FAA to impose a justification requirement that is not in the statute and that Congress never intended to apply. Moreover, Congress directed the FAA to "discourage" a sponsor from using entitlement funds for "lower priority projects by giving lower priority to discretionary projects" submitted by the sponsor (which has used its entitlement funds for such a low-priority project).9 This provision presupposes that airport sponsors were given the discretion to decide the most appropriate use for their entitlement funds, albeit with potential impacts on its discretionary fund requests. Fourth, the FAA's reliance on the NPIAS report requirement as the basis for the justification test and needs-based determination is misguided. Section 47103(a) provides that the NPIAS must "include the kind and estimated cost of eligible airport development the [FAA] considers necessary to provide a safe, efficient, and integrated system of public-use airports adequate to anticipate and meet the needs of civil aeronautics." The purpose of the NPIAS is not to limit the projects for which an airport sponsor may use AIP funding. A plain reading of Title 49 of the U.S. Code indicates that the NPIAS is used to help Congress budget and evaluate the full scope of infrastructure needs across the system, by FAA for planning purposes to promote the development of an integrated airport system,10 to determine the airports that are eligible to receive a grant,11 to limit the projects that may be funded by airports designated in the unclassified status,12 and to determine the annual apportionment amount for each non-commercial service airport.13 Moreover, nothing in the legislative history of the NPIAS requirement suggests it was designed to impose additional hurdles for an airport sponsor to obtain a grant for eligible projects. In 1982, Congress began requiring the FAA to develop the NPIAS, replacing the former National Airport System Plan (NASP).14 The major shift from the NASP to the NPIAS was for FAA to focus on "integrated airport systems." This was a major congressional policy priority at the time because of the need to develop and improve reliever airports to alleviate traffic congestion at major airport hubs and increase capacity in metropolitan areas.15 Indeed, Congress also directed FAA to fund grants for, and prioritize projects that are consistent with, "integrated airport system planning," which the law defined to mean "developing for planning purposes information and guidance to decide the extent, kind, location, and timing of airport development needed in a specific area to establish a viable, balanced, and integrated system of public-use airports."16 In short, the NPIAS was created to establish the scope of airports (existing and new) that are needed for an "integrated airport system" and eligible for grants and to provide information and guidance to a range of stakeholders for planning purposes. Separate from the statutory framework, we believe, as a matter of policy, that FAA staff should give substantial deference to the judgment of airport sponsors on the appropriateness of a proposed project. Airport sponsors are public in nature with a public mission and unique knowledge of the needs and requirements of the facilities for which they are responsible. They have decades of experience in successfully utilizing federal grant dollars for worthy projects that enhance safety and meet the other objectives specified by Congress and the agency. Sponsors report to AAAE incurring significant costs to justify and explain to the FAA why the project is needed and why the sponsor should be allowed to use funds that it is entitled to under the law. We do not believe this is an efficient use of limited resources, and sponsors need more flexibility in order to maintain and grow their facilities safely and efficiently. In addition, with the FAA experiencing a significant decrease in its staffing, we believe the agency has a unique opportunity to adapt and adjust its procedures to make the existing workload on staff more manageable. Thus, we urge the FAA to eliminate or relax its requirement that sponsors demonstrate an actual need or justification for each proposed project before an AIP entitlement grant may be awarded.
3. At the very least, the FAA should simplify determinations that certain types of projects have the necessary justification and an actual need.
AAAE disagrees with the FAA's position that an airport sponsor must demonstrate an actual need for a proposed project in order to use AIP entitlement funds, including any argument that Sec. 47103 requires such a determination. Notwithstanding, the FAA has discretion to instruct and simplify the process for FAA field offices to determine what constitutes an actual need for a proposed project to meet the criteria. Indeed, nothing in Title 49 of the U.S. Code defines how the FAA is expected to determine, for purposes of the NPIAS, what types of airport development projects are "necessary to provide a safe, efficient, and integrated system of public-use airports adequate to anticipate and meet the needs of civil aeronautics . . . ."17
17. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47103(a).
Mr. William Garrison
August 17, 2026 | Page 7 of 12
AAAE urges the FAA to exercise its discretion and simplify the process for an FAA field office to make a determination that certain types of proposed projects have an actual need, including projects (a) that would be funded through an AIP entitlement grant or (b) where the federal share would be less than a specified threshold (e.g., 50 percent). If an airport sponsor is funding the majority of costs for a specific project, the FAA should presume there is an "actual need" for that project and the federal funds are not being used on a frivolous project. In such a case, a need-based determination is unnecessary, and the agency could simply presume projects falling into a certain category are necessary for meeting the needs of civil aeronautics.
4. The FAA should (a) limit the authority of field offices to require a BCA for "any" project and (b) increase the threshold that determines when a BCA is required for a project.
Under Sec. 47115(d), Congress only requires that the FAA consider a BCA before issuing a grant if (a) the project to be funded is for preserving and improving capacity and (b) the FAA is planning to use funds from its discretionary fund. No other types of projects receiving discretionary funds are required to undergo a BCA review.18 In the Draft AIP Handbook, the FAA provides that sponsors must prepare a BCA for capacity projects if it is requesting an amount of discretionary funding that exceeds a certain threshold. However, the FAA does not disclose the current threshold above which a sponsor must prepare a BCA for a project seeking discretionary funding.19 Separately, the FAA states that the agency "may" require a BCA for any other AIP project.20
We have two major concerns regarding the provisions on BCAs. First, if FAA field offices were given the authority to require a BCA for any project, regardless of funding amount, it would introduce new risks for an airport sponsor to execute a project in a reasonable timeframe. Any office could arbitrarily decide at any time that a project requires a BCA, even if the project has been in development for years and despite representations from staff that a BCA would not be required. This type of scenario could greatly extend a project's timeline. Second, ironically, many AAAE members expressed frustration with the high costs associated with preparing a BCA relative to its overall benefits in the case of most projects.
AAAE urges the FAA to make two changes to the directives on BCAs. First, the FAA should only require a BCA for projects for which Congress has directed the agency to evaluate the benefits and costs. This would only include capacity-enhancing projects receiving AIP discretionary funds. For all other projects, a BCA should remain optional supplemental information that an airport sponsor may provide if the sponsor believes it would help make the case to the FAA for a discretionary funding request. At the very least, the FAA should establish strict parameters for field offices when they may require a BCA to limit the overly broad discretion given to FAA field offices in the Draft AIP Handbook. Second, the FAA should increase the funding threshold that determines whether a BCA is required and index it for inflation.
18. See id. Sec. 47115(d)(2).19. Draft AIP Handbook, supra, at 2-10.20. Id. at 2-11.
Mr. William Garrison
August 17, 2026 | Page 8 of 12
FAA Field Office Authority
5. The FAA should provide increased flexibility, discretion, and decision-making authority to FAA field offices to accelerate reviews, and airport sponsors must be given an appeal option in case that discretion is abused or applied inconsistently.
As explained by the FAA in the preamble, one of the agency's stated objectives with the Draft AIP Handbook was to shift more decision-making and approvals to FAA field offices. AAAE is generally supportive of delegating increased authority to these offices, which would help accelerate reviews and approvals for airport sponsors. However, many AAAE members are concerned about the potential for abuse of that discretion or inconsistent application of the AIP across regions. An example is a case where one office approves a project grant while another office does not, despite factual circumstances being similar. Moreover, sponsors routinely report to AAAE that they are hesitant to elevate issues or concerns with decisions made by FAA field offices because of fear of retribution. Thus, we urge the FAA to establish and outline a procedure in the final handbook that allows sponsors to request further review from headquarters staff, without retribution or penalty, to ensure AIP policies and rules are consistently applied and in accordance with the intent of the agency.
6. The FAA must ensure adequate staffing levels in its field offices commensurate with increased responsibilities so that the handbook's objectives are achieved.
In 2025, the FAA experienced a significant reduction in staffing through deferred resignations, early retirements, and other initiatives. While safety-critical staff were exempt from the reductions, the agency reportedly lost a significant number of program managers, environmental protection specialists, and airport planners, among others, in the Office of Airports. These personnel are essential to facilitating the approvals required for sponsors to secure AIP grants, which provide vital funding for critical airport safety projects. Indeed, AAAE has received reports from its members that staffing issues at FAA have already led to delays with obtaining grant-related approvals. AAAE is concerned that the staffing reductions in FAA field offices, along with the increased decision-making authority, may lead to further delays in obtaining the necessary approvals. Therefore, we strongly urge the FAA to ensure that the agency has adequate local staff that is commensurate with their increased responsibilities.
Project-Specific Comments
7. The FAA should adopt the proposal to allow self-certification of eligible costs for terminal projects without limiting this self-certification option to projects that use $10 million or less in PFC revenue.
Under the Draft AIP Handbook, Appendix N outlines the eligibility and justification requirements for terminal development projects. These generally include projects within the terminal building and associated with the airside and landside areas that are directly related to the movement of passengers and baggage. Terminal projects typically have a mix of eligible and ineligible areas that require prorating the total project cost to properly allocate funding. (Costs are generally prorated using the ratio of eligible area to total area.) One notable change in the draft handbook is to streamline the process for determining allowable costs for terminal projects with both eligible and ineligible areas. Under the proposal, the FAA would allow airport sponsors (rather than FAA staff) to calculate and self-certify eligible costs if the sponsor is requesting that the FAA cover no more than 70 percent of the project's eligible costs.21
AAAE strongly supports the proposal to allow airport sponsors to self-certify eligible costs but urges the FAA to make one change. In Section N-2.2.1 of Appendix N, the FAA states that the self-certification option "may not be available" for airports that anticipate using more than $10 million in PFC funds for the project because they "are required to provide detailed basis of cost information."22 We believe this exception to the self-certification option should be eliminated. The $10 million cap would severely limit the availability of this option and would effectively prevent many larger airports from taking advantage of the expedited process. We do not believe the exception is necessary, and it is also unclear why the FAA established an arbitrary cap at $10 million. At the very least, the cap should be raised to $100 million (or $25 million to be consistent with the FAA's streamlined procedures for PFC authorizations).23
8. The FAA should eliminate the new justification requirement regarding primary runway reconstruction and rehabilitation projects (i.e., the 120-percent threshold).
Under the Draft AIP Handbook, Appendix B outlines the eligibility and justification requirements for projects associated with aircraft operational surfaces (AOS), including runways, taxiways, aprons, and taxilanes, among others. The draft document introduces a new justification requirement for runway reconstruction and rehabilitation projects that is not in the current AIP Handbook. Specifically, the FAA provides that full reconstruction or rehabilitation of a primary runway may only be conducted at its existing length if the runway is within 120 percent of the runway length needed by the airport's "critical aircraft," unless an exception applies.24 It is unclear why FAA added this 120-percent threshold, the rationale behind the policy change, and the intended application (including how it would apply to runways with existing dimensions that exceed current design needs). The provision also appears to focus only on runway length and does not address runway width. The consensus from AAAE members is that this new limitation is unnecessary and arbitrary and should be removed from the final handbook.
21. Draft AIP Handbook, supra, at N-10.22. Id.23. See Fed. Aviation Admin., PFC Update, PFC 73-20 (Jan. 22, 2020).24. Draft AIP Handbook, supra, at B-14.
Mr. William Garrison
August 17, 2026 | Page 10 of 12
9. The FAA should eliminate the new NEM annual certification requirement as a condition of receiving a grant for a noise mitigation project and address other questions regarding required documentation to obtain a grant for these projects.
Under the Draft AIP Handbook, Appendix I outlines the eligibility and justification requirements for airport noise compatibility programs under 14 C.F.R. pt. 150 and mitigation measures in an FAA environmental decision document for certain development projects. Table I-2.2 outlines "other considerations" for the FAA to fund a noise mitigation-related project. AAAE received many comments, concerns, and questions regarding the item, "Documentation is Current at Time of Each Funding Request," which discusses documentation from the airport sponsor that must be current to receive a noise mitigation project grant under AIP. The table states, in part:
"All documents for the implementation of remedial noise mitigation and noise abatement measures must be current at the time of each grant request. This includes [noise exposure maps (NEMs)]. In each year following the date of the FAA-accepted future NEM, sponsors must certify that the NEMs on file with the FAA accurately reflect current and projected operational conditions at the airport, sound insulation program implementation plans and acoustic test plans, and noise land inventory and reuse plans.
All maps that are five or more years old require written validation, which means the sponsor needs to explain why the accepted NEMs reflect the current or projected operational conditions at the airport for the associated noncompatible land uses. . . ." We have several concerns and questions regarding the item in Table I-2.2 on current documentation at the time of a funding request.
First, AAAE opposes the annual certification requirement regarding NEMs. The provision is not included in the current AIP Handbook, and the FAA has offered no explanation as to why an annual NEM certification is necessary or how this requirement differs from existing obligations. Indeed, Part 150 already requires airport sponsors to promptly prepare and submit a revised NEM to the FAA under certain conditions, including if a change in the operation of the airport creates a significant reduction in noise over existing noncompatible uses.25 We do not believe the certification requirement is necessary or appropriate and urge the FAA to remove it from the final handbook.
Second, we urge the FAA to clarify what specific documents must be current at the time of each grant request. Table I-2.2 states, "All documents for the implementation of remedial noise mitigation and noise abatement measures must be current at the time of each grant request. This includes NEMs." However, the FAA does not identify or discuss any other documents (besides NEMs) that need to be current. To prevent confusion, we recommend the FAA limit the applicability of the discussion to NEMs, unless the agency intended to discuss other documents that need to be current.
Third, we believe the FAA should update Table I-2.2 to provide a more comprehensive description of documentation that is required for an airport sponsor to receive a noise mitigation project grant under AIP. Sponsors should be provided with a reasonable understanding of the types of information that may be required during the grant application process. Sponsors have increasingly been asked to provide supplemental documentation that is not clearly identified in the current AIP Handbook or other existing guidance, such as information regarding specific neighborhoods proposed for testing or treatment within a noise contour. Clear handbook guidance would improve transparency, reduce uncertainty during project development, and promote more efficient grant processing.
Fourth, we believe the FAA should clarify the requirement that any NEM that is five or more years old requires "written validation" from the airport sponsor. Part 150 requires that NEMs be based "on forecast aircraft operations at the airport for a forecast period that is at least 5 years in the future."26 For a sponsor that developed an NEM with a forecast period greater than five years, it is unclear whether the validation requirement applies. We believe validation should only be required when a sponsor intends to use the NEM beyond the initial forecast period rather than an arbitrary fixed time (i.e., NEMs that are "five or more years old"). In addition, we believe the FAA should provide an estimated review timeline for this validation.
Deadlines and Expected FAA Review Timeframe
10. The FAA should (a) set deadlines for its field offices to complete the various reviews associated with AIP grants and (b) provide the expected review duration for each type of approval.
The FAA should implement deadlines for its staff to complete the various reviews associated with AIP grants and provide industry with an expected timeframe for field offices to complete those reviews. Before airport sponsors may receive an AIP grant, they must receive numerous approvals (or, in some cases, an FAA acceptance) associated with certain documents, including, but not limited to, airport layout plan (ALP) updates, aeronautical studies, aviation activity forecasts, airspace analyses, environmental analyses, modifications of standards, reimbursable agreements, construction safety and phasing plans (CSPPs), civil rights requirements, procurement processes, alternative project delivery contracts (if applicable), and grant applications. Unfortunately, FAA has never established deadlines for its staff or communicated expected review times to airport sponsors.
Under the current framework, the unpredictability of review timelines creates a bottleneck that stalls infrastructure projects, leaving airport sponsors unable to efficiently plan budgets, secure matching local funds, or begin projects during optimal construction seasons. Introducing deadlines and expected review times in the Draft AIP Handbook for each type of approval would lead to more accountability within FAA field offices, improve consistency of decision-making nationwide, enable sponsors to better plan and budget for their capital projects, and ensure that federal funds are deployed rapidly. Indeed, more transparent and predictable review process would allow airport sponsors to accelerate the delivery of critical-safety projects, expand capacity, and improve operational efficiency by reducing administrative delays.
* * *
AAAE appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft AIP Handbook. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or require any additional information. I can be reached at justin.barkowski@aaae.org or at (703) 824-0504.
Sincerely,
Justin T. Barkowski
Legislative and Regulatory Counsel
Enclosure
Ensure Web Tools Remain Current
FAA discusses moving broadly applicable information about the AIP to the FAA's website. In addition, the FAA mentions an AIP funding tool that will also be on the website at the time of final publication. While AAAE is supportive of this approach and tool, we want to make sure the information online stays current and consistent with official orders, program guidance letters, and other information released by the FAA. Ensure any guidance added online includes clear publication dates, effective dates, or version information. This would help sponsors determine whether online guidance, tools, and related materials reflect the most recent changes in guidance. Comment ensures an airport sponsor can understand where a requirement comes from and whether the existing version of a specific document is current. Preamble Page i-vi-i-vii Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Include Additional Eligible Project Formulation Costs
Section 2-3.6.6.8.1 discusses the scope of project formulation costs (incurred before the grant agreement is executed) that are eligible for reimbursement. Some AAAE members urged the FAA to include additional costs as eligible. Consider including certain procurement actions as eligible project formulation costs, such as EMAS systems where only one FAA-approved vendor exists. Comment improves clarity or the application of a policy in the document. Chapter 2 Page 2-28 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Reference NPIAS and ACIP Formulation Order
Section 3-2.2.2 includes useful information regarding project phasing and overall development objectives. This topic ties closely to FAA Order 5090.5, Formulation of the NPIAS and ACIP, although there is no mention of the order in the section. Include a reference or explanation of the relationship between Section 3-2.2.2 and FAA Order 5090.5, which would help connect planning requirements with grant application guidance. Comment improves internal consistency and/or cross-references with other FAA guidance. Chapter 3 Page 3-4 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Address Outdated PERADA Checklist References
Section 3-2.3 discusses pre-grant application processes and states that an FAA field office may use FAA Form 5100-109, AIP Project Evaluation Review and Development Analysis (PERADA). This form currently contains references to FAA Order 5100.38D and will be outdated if not updated when the final Order 5100.38E is published. Ensure that FAA Form 5100-109 is updated at the time of publishing FAA Order 5100.38E. Comment ensures an airport sponsor can understand where a requirement comes from and whether the existing version of a specific document is current. Chapter 3 Page 3-5 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Clarify Acquisition of Good Title Language
Section 3-3.1.1 states that for the FAA "[t]o issue a grant where good title to the airport operating areas (AOA) is not yet in place, but is being acquired, FAA policy requires that the acquisition of good title must be in process." Several AAAE members wanted more clarification about what "in process" means and how an airport sponsor would manage the Exhibit A requirement in these circumstances. Provide more guidance on when the acquisition of good title is considered to be "in process" and how an airport sponsor would fulfill the Exhibit A requirement in these circumstances. Comment identifies an ambiguous or incomplete instruction or directive to FAA field offices. Chapter 3 Page 3-5 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Correct Cross-Reference to Appendix K
Section 3-3.1.3.1 directs users to Appendix K for additional information on consultation with airport users as part of a planning effort. However, Appendix K does not appear to mention consultations. Confirm or correct that the cross-reference to Appendix K is accurate. Comment improves internal consistency and/or cross-references with other FAA guidance. Chapter 3 Page 3-6-3-7 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Discuss EO 12372 in Intergovernmental Review Section
Section 3-3.1.3.2 discusses an airport sponsor's intergovernmental review requirements for federally funded projects. However, there is no discussion on Executive Order 12372 despite multiple references to the order and requirement in the intergovernmental/state review section of FAA's grant application (SF-424). Provide an overview and discussion of Executive Order 12372 to ensure airport sponsors submitting an FAA grant application better understand those requirements. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-7 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Consider More Precise Topic Header
The header for Section 3-3.2, "Compliance Prerequisites," may be broader than the content indicates. Consider changing the header to "Grant Assurance Compliance Prerequisites," which seems to more accurately describe the section focused on grant assurance compliance. Comment improves a name, definition, or term to ensure clarity for airport sponsors. Chapter 3 Page 3-7 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Address BABA with Buy America Requirements
Section 3-3.2.2 discusses Buy America requirements under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 50101 but does not reference Build America, Buy America (BABA) requirements. FAA guidance indicates BABA applies to AIP-funded projects and expands domestic preference requirements beyond traditional Buy America, particularly for construction materials. Clarify how airport sponsors should understand both requirements (BABA and Buy America) together. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-7-3-8 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Discuss DOT Waiver of Buy America Requirements for De Minimis Costs and Small Grants
Neither Section 3-3.2.2, which covers Buy America requirements, nor the FAA's website (which is linked to in the Draft AIP Handbook) discusses DOT's August 16, 2023 "Waiver of Buy America Requirements for De Minimis Costs and Small Grants" (88 Fed. Reg. 55817). Clarify how airport sponsors and their contractors may utilize the DOT waiver of BABA requirements for de minimis costs and small grants, which the department issued in August 2023. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-7-3-8 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Align Wording in Section on Exceeding FAA Standards
Section 3-3.2.4.3 discusses when an FAA field office may fund a project that exceeds FAA standards. The second paragraph states: "Proactive improvements to sustain operations and permit resumption of operations following natural disasters per 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47102 are also deemed justified by ARP Headquarters . . . ." This is an incorrect restatement of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47102(3)(T). Correct the language to use "or" instead of "and" in order for the sentence to be consistent with 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47102(3)(T). Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-9 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Consider Allowing Local Building Standards for Terminal Projects
Sections 3-3.2.4.4 and 3-3.2.4.5 discuss when state standards may be used in lieu of FAA standards and notes that some eligible projects do not have FAA standards, procedures, policy, plans, or specifications. Some AAAE members urged FAA to allow and/or accept the use of local building standards for terminal projects where FAA has no standards. Consider allowing airport sponsors to use local building standards for terminal projects where FAA has no standards. Comment identifies an ambiguous or incomplete instruction or directive to FAA field offices. Chapter 3 Page 3-9-3-10 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Align DBE Threshold Requirement with Regulation
Table 3-3.1 states that an airport sponsor must have a DBE program "if it will award $250,000 in AIP funding during a Federal fiscal year." The DBE regulation uses different phrasing regarding when a sponsor must have a DBE program. Correct the language to align with 49 C.F.R. Sec. 26.21(a)(3), which states that FAA recipients must have a DBE program if they are "receiving grants for airport planning or development that will award prime contractors the cumulative total value of which exceeds $250,000 in FAA funds in a Federal fiscal year." The final Order 5100.38E should align more closely with the regulation. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-11, Table 3-3.1 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Confirm New Sponsor Review Process Applies
In the current AIP Handbook, Table 3-12(a) requires the FAA field office to inform new airport sponsors of the required intergovernmental project review process in accordance with FAA Order 1200.21. However, this requirement is not stated in the Draft AIP Handbook, and it is unclear whether it remains in effect. Clarify whether the appropriate FAA regional office or ADO must continue to notify sponsors of this process. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Not applicable Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Clarify Timing of Economic Price Adjustments Provision
Section 3-4.1.2 discusses FAA's authority in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47108 that allows the agency to include a provision in a grant agreement under which the FAA agrees to pay more than the maximum amount otherwise specified in the agreement if commodity or labor prices have increased since the grant agreement was executed. It is unclear, however, whether this provision must be included in the original grant agreement or may be added later through an amendment. Clarify whether the economic price adjustments provision may be added to a grant agreement after it has been executed. Comment identifies an ambiguous or incomplete instruction or directive to FAA field offices. Chapter 3 Page 3-13-3-14 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
AIP Comment Import Template to AIP Handbook 5100.38E
Address Inconsistencies on Alternative Project Delivery Contracts Section
Section 3-4.2.7 discusses the circumstances under which FAA may authorize an airport sponsor to use an alternative project delivery contract method in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47142. Section 47142 was recently amended by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 and after FAA AC 150/5100-14 was last update. This has created inconsistencies between the draft AIP Handbook and FAA AC 150/5100-14. Ensure Section 3-4.2.7 explains that FAA AC 150/5100-14 does not represent the latest guidance from FAA on the use of alternative project delivery contract methods. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-17 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Clarify Language on Consultant Contract Extensions
Section 3-4.2.13.2 appears incomplete or potentially inconsistent with Section 2.7.2.4 of FAA AC 150/5100-14E. The Draft AIP Handbook seems to impose a strict prohibition on extending consultant services contracts beyond five years. However, the AC states that a project initiated in the first five years may continue beyond the initial contract duration, but no new projects should be initiated without a new procurement action. Clarify and/or address the inconsistencies between Section 3-4.2.13.2 of the Draft AIP Handbook and Section 2.7.2.4 of FAA AC 150/5100-14E. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-21 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Set Threshold When Construction Management Programs Are Required
In the current AIP Handbook, FAA only requires a construction management program (CMP) to be submitted to a field office if the project has a total pavement construction contract value over $500,000. A CMP ensures quality control and compliance with applicable construction standards. Unfortunately, the Draft AIP Handbook does not specify any threshold (above which a CMP is required), implying that all projects require a CMP. Specify that an airport sponsor must only submit a CMP if the project has a total pavement construction contract value over $1,000,000 (if not higher). We believe an adjustment for rising construction costs is appropriate because the $500,000 threshold was last established in 2014. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 4 Page 4-21 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Include DCL in Appendix A as Acronym
DCL, discretionary candidate list, is a common FAA phrase used in the Draft AIP Handbook but is not included in Appendix A. DCL should be included in Appendix A to allow readers to understand the abbreviation without relying on external knowledge. Comment improves a name, definition, or term to ensure clarity for airport sponsors. Appendix A Pages A-1-A-5 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Adjust Justification Requirement for Apron Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Projects
Table B-5.2 classifies apron projects as either rehabilitation or reconstruction based on a 30 percent area or panel replacement threshold. Projects addressing less than 30 percent of an apron are categorized as rehabilitation, whereas projects affecting 30 percent or more are classified as reconstruction. Some AAAE members expressed concern that this threshold was arbitrary and would reset the useful life for a large portion of apron pavement that may only last 10 years and not the full 20 years. Consider replacing the current 30 percent threshold with a two-thirds (66.7 percent) threshold before reclassifying a concrete panel project from rehabilitation to reconstruction. This would allow airport sponsors to replace up to 66 percent of failing apron panels under a simpler rehabilitation process, reducing bureaucratic hurdles and engineering costs. Comment improves clarity or the application of a policy in the document. Appendix B Page B-22 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Expand Eligibility of EMAS-Related Projects
Table C-3.1 outlines the justification requirements for projects to construct, reconstruct, and rehabilitate Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS). EMAS installations are critical safety infrastructure that provide a proven means of reducing the consequences of runway overruns. Some AAAE members support the current language that recognizes the eligibility of EMAS replacement when panels are destroyed by an aircraft and no other funding source, such as insurance, is available. However, like other airfield safety systems, EMAS requires periodic inspection, testing, evaluation, and rehabilitation to ensure it will perform as designed when needed. The Draft AIP Handbook does not clearly identify these activities as eligible for AIP funding. Some AAAE members urged the FAA to consider strengthening the language regarding EMAS to explicitly recognize testing, rehabilitation, and restoration activities as AIP-eligible projects. This should allow AIP funding for: (a) the testing and evaluation necessary to verify the continued operational effectiveness of an EMAS installation; (b) the rehabilitation, restoration, or repair of EMAS components that have deteriorated due to age, weather exposure, settlement, or other operational factors; (c) the restoration of EMAS systems following aircraft engagements when insurance proceeds or other funding sources are unavailable or insufficient to return the system to its original design standard; and (d) the periodic assessments necessary to determine remaining service life and identify corrective actions required to maintain operational readiness. Providing this clarification would promote consistency among FAA regions, help airport sponsors maintain critical runway safety infrastructure, and ensure EMAS systems remain fully functional throughout their service life. Comment improves clarity or the application of a policy in the document. Appendix C Pages C-7-C-8 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Relax Justification Requirements for Certain Service Road Projects
Table C-4.1 outlines justification requirements for air operations projects. For the construction, improvement, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of service roads, the FAA states that "[e]ligibility for new construction is tied to the overall development objective and should be constructed with the project requiring the need for the service road." Non-public airside service roads directly enhance capacity by keeping service vehicles off active taxiways. Tying a new service road to an eligible facility is more restrictive than operational needs. Consider new language that allows more flexibility at airports that could benefit from new service roads to eliminate service vehicles on active AOA surfaces. Comment improves clarity or the application of a policy in the document. Appendix C Pages C-16-C-17 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Clarify Stand-Alone Marking Projects
Appendix F outlines the eligibility and justification requirements for lighting, signage, and marking projects needed to support eligible aircraft operational surfaces. Table F-3.3 provides that stand-alone marking projects are not eligible at large hub airports. However, Section F-2.2.1 states that there is a general exception for stand-alone lighting, signage, and marking projects to correct a documented safety requirement, deficiency, violation, or recommendation. Clarify that the general exception explained in Section F-2.2.1 applies to large hub airports notwithstanding the exclusion identified in Table F-3.3. Comment improves clarity or the application of a policy in the document. Appendix F Page F-3 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Allow Stand-Alone Airfield Lighting Control and Monitoring System Projects in Some Cases
Table F-3.1 provides that stand-alone projects involving airfield lighting control and monitoring systems (ALCMSs) are excluded work and not eligible. This exclusion would limit the ability for airports with a robust airfield electrical replacement program from replacing these systems if their airfield electrical is in good condition. It may also prompt some airport sponsors to replace otherwise good lighting altogether with the ALMCS. Consider allowing a stand-alone ALCMS project if greater than 40 percent of the airport's lighting has been replaced in the past 10 years. Comment improves clarity or the application of a policy in the document. Appendix F Page F-7 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Define or Clarify "Level of Service"
Appendix N, which discusses eligibility and justification requirements for airport terminal projects, uses the term "level or service" (or "levels of service") in a number of occasions, but the term is ambiguous and undefined. Clarify or explain the FAA's intent with regards to "level of service" to help airport sponsors understand how it is applied in the context of eligibility and justification requirements for terminal projects. Comment improves a name, definition, or term to ensure clarity for airport sponsors. Appendix N Pages N-9, N-11, N-12 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Provide Sponsors with the FAA's Project Work Codes
In the current AIP Handbook, the FAA identified the various agency work codes associated with each type of project. Some AAAE members expressed concern that removal of the work codes from eligible project descriptions may introduce ambiguity or confusion between airport sponsors and the FAA regarding the exact scope or eligibility of projects. Provide sponsors with the overall development objective work codes associated with each project, either in the existing appendices or in a separate FAA document. Comment improves a name, definition, or term to ensure clarity for airport sponsors. Appendix B-Appendix O Not applicable Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Provide Examples for Standardized Justification Requirements
Justification requirements appear to be standardized across multiple project appendices using generic language. Some AAAE members expressed concern that the generic language and standardization makes it harder to understand the FAA's expectations regarding eligibility and justification requirements. Consider including examples to help airport sponsors understand how common projects satisfy these requirements. For example, the FAA could explain how a typical Part 150 noise mitigation project in Table I-2.1 satisfies one of the three congressionally directed priorities. Comment improves clarity of a specific policy in the document. Appendix B-Appendix O Not applicable Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Enumerate Contents in Each Table with Letter or Number
In the current AIP Handbook, each table has letters (e.g., a, b, c) for each line of the table to help with citations and references. Some AAAE members indicated that the text inside each table in the Draft AIP Handbook is often difficult to cite or reference because there are no letters or numbers. Consider enumerating lines within each table with letters to make citations more specific and improve usability during coordination between airport sponsors and FAA field offices. Comment improves internal consistency and/or cross-references with other FAA guidance. General Comment Not applicable Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Identify Sources of FAA Policy References
Several requirements throughout the Draft AIP Handbook are attributed to FAA policy ("By FAA policy" or "Per FAA policy") without identifying the underlying source of the policy. Ensure that if the Draft AIP Handbook is the source of the policy, that should be stated directly. If the policy originates in another FAA order, memorandum, or guidance document, the source should be cited. Comment ensures an airport sponsor can understand where a requirement comes from and whether the existing version of a specific document is current. General Comment Not applicable Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Clarify Definitions of Certain Types of Projects
In the current AIP Handbook, Table I-2 explains the distinction between construct, extend, widen, strengthen, and rehabilitate, and Table 3-2 explains the differences between maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and replacement projects. Table 2-2.1 in the Draft AIP Handbook provides clarity between construction, routine work, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. The draft document also uses many of these terms as project categories and unit-of-work labels but does not appear to define them. This has led to questions from AAAE members and may lead to confusion about how the FAA defines them. Definitions are important because these terms have major implications for project eligibility and the applicable amount of useful life that applies. Clarify how the FAA defines and evaluates the terms in Table 3-2 and Table I-2 from the current AIP Handbook. Comment improves a name, definition, or term to ensure clarity for airport sponsors. General Comment Not applicable Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2026-4006-0028
August 17, 2026
William Garrison
Acting Director
Office of Airport Planning and Programming
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20591
RE:
Federal Aviation Administration; Request for Public Comment
Notice of Draft FAA Order 5100-38E, Airport Improvement Program Handbook
Docket No. FAA-2026-4006 (May 19, 2026)
Dear Mr. Garrison:
The American Association of Airport Executives ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. August 17, 2026 William Garrison Acting Director Office of Airport Planning and Programming Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591 RE: Federal Aviation Administration; Request for Public Comment Notice of Draft FAA Order 5100-38E, Airport Improvement Program Handbook Docket No. FAA-2026-4006 (May 19, 2026) Dear Mr. Garrison: The American Association of Airport Executives(AAAE), which represents over 12,000 members serving nearly 875 airports across the country, appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback in response to the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) request for public comment on draft FAA Order 5100.38E, "Airport Improvement Program Handbook" ("Draft AIP Handbook"), which is the primary guide for the FAA's funding of airport development projects under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).1 The AIP is a critical funding program for airport sponsors to implement their capital programs, especially critical safety-enhancing airfield projects, and we are pleased to share our unique perspective on the proposed AIP Handbook update.
Introduction and Summary of Recommendations
We generally support the FAA's stated objectives with the Draft AIP Handbook, which include clarifying statutory requirements, eliminating redundancies, creating an easily updated structure, increasing opportunities for efficiency, and delegating more decision-making to FAA field offices.2 However, AAAE members expressed several concerns. First, despite countless hours reviewing the draft document, the lack of any change summary from the FAA made it difficult to understand the scope and nature of the changes and whether the document fulfills the FAA's stated objectives. Second, while we support delegating decision-making to FAA field offices, we are concerned that the recent reduction in FAA staffing may lead to slower review times and further delays than what airport sponsors already experience. Third, although we appreciate the FAA adopting several efficiency improvements, AAAE believes additional changes are needed to streamline the grantmaking process.1 Notice of Draft FAA Order 5100-38E, Airport Improvement Program Handbook, 91 Fed. Reg. 29247 (May 19, 2026) (request for public comment).2 Fed. Aviation Admin., Airport Improvement Program Handbook i-i (2026) (hereinafter "Draft AIP Handbook").
From AAAE's understanding of the proposed changes, we believe that the FAA should take the following actions to simplify certain AIP processes, improve the usability of the document, and ensure its stated objectives are accomplished:
The FAA should (a) provide a summary of changes made in the Draft AIP Handbook and an opportunity to comment on the changes and (b) educate airport sponsors on specific changes that the FAA adopts in the final document.
The FAA should eliminate or relax its requirement that airport sponsors demonstrate an "actual need" or justification for each proposed project before an AIP entitlement grant may be awarded. At the very least, the FAA should simplify determinations that certain types of projects have the necessary justification and an actual need.
The FAA should (a) limit the authority of field offices to require a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for "any" project and (b) increase the threshold that determines when a BCA is required for a project.
The FAA should provide increased flexibility, discretion, and decision-making authority to FAA field offices to accelerate reviews, and airport sponsors must be given an appeal option in case that discretion is abused or applied inconsistently.
The FAA must ensure adequate staffing levels in its field offices commensurate with increased responsibilities so that the handbook's objectives are achieved.
The FAA should adopt the proposal to allow self-certification of eligible costs for terminal projects without limiting this self-certification option to projects that use $10 million or less in passenger facility charge (PFC) revenue.
The FAA should eliminate the new justification requirement that only allows AIP funding for reconstruction or rehabilitation of a primary runway if the runway is within 120 percent of the runway length needed by the airport's "critical aircraft" (unless a specific exception applies).
The FAA should eliminate the new noise exposure map (NEM) annual certification requirement as a condition of receiving a grant for a noise mitigation project and address other questions regarding required documentation to obtain a grant for these projects.
The FAA should (a) set deadlines for its field offices to complete the various reviews associated with AIP grants and (b) provide the expected review duration for each type of approval.
In addition to the recommendations provided in this letter, AAAE developed and provided dozens of other specific comments to the Draft AIP Handbook. Attached is an Excel spreadsheet with those comments, which are more detailed and intended to, among other things, identify ambiguous instructions to FAA field offices; identify conflicts between the draft document and statutes and other FAA guidance documents; improve the clarity and application of specific policies; and ensure airport sponsors understand various FAA requirements associated with securing AIP grants. Aside from our comments, we urge the FAA to continue to engage and communicate with AAAE and the industry as the agency transitions to Order 5100.38E. This will be important as airport sponsors need education on the updated handbook to ensure they understand the processes and requirements for access to critical AIP funding.
AAAE's Recommendations for FAA
Summary of AIP Handbook Changes
1. The FAA should (a) provide a summary of changes made in the Draft AIP Handbook and an opportunity to comment on the changes and (b) educate airport sponsors on specific changes that the FAA adopts in the final document.
One of the major concerns that AAAE heard from its members was the lack of any summary of changes between the current AIP Handbook (Order 5100.38D) and the Draft AIP Handbook (Order 5100.38E). On its website, the FAA has listed a "Draft Order 5100.38E, AIP Handbook: Key Updates (coming soon)" marker since the draft document was released in May.3 To date, the FAA has not posted any comparison of the two handbooks on its website despite the significance of the changes made. There are also no redlines included in the Draft AIP Handbook even though it is a complete rewrite and has 274 fewer pages than the version released in 2019. Overall, it has been very challenging for AAAE and the airport community to understand what changes have been made in the document, especially from a policy perspective. In light of these concerns, AAAE urges the FAA to release a summary of changes to the current AIP Handbook as soon as possible and offer another opportunity to comment on the changes that have been made. This could be in the form of a crosswalk document that details changes between current order and the draft document (similar to the Excel spreadsheet that was provided to industry when Change 1 to Order 5100.38D was released). The summary is necessary to help airport sponsors understand the Draft AIP Handbook, including changes incorporated from program guidance letters (PGLs) and other updated FAA documents. In addition, we highly encourage the FAA to engage with industry, through conferences and other forms of outreach, to answer questions and educate the community on the changes to ensure a successful transition to Order 5100.38E.
3. Fed. Aviation Admin., Draft AIP Handbook, Order 5100.38E (May 22, 2026), https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_handbook/draft.
Mr. William Garrison
August 17, 2026 | Page 4 of 12
Project Justification and Actual Need Requirements
2. The FAA should eliminate or relax its requirement that airport sponsors demonstrate an "actual need" or justification for each proposed project before an AIP entitlement grant may be awarded.
AAAE strongly disagrees with the FAA's position that an airport sponsor must demonstrate a justification and "actual need" to use AIP entitlement funds for an eligible project. In explaining its grant authority in the Draft AIP Handbook, FAA states that "if the FAA determines that a project is eligible and justified at that airport, then the FAA may fund the proposed project in whole or in part."4 For each proposed project, the justification test requires an FAA field office to ensure (a) the project advances an AIP policy; (b) an actual need for the project exists; and (c) the project scope is appropriate.5 FAA explains the test is a needs-based determination delegated to the agency by 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47103, which requires the development of the biennial National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), and Sec. 47104, which grants the FAA the general authority to issue AIP grants "[t]o maintain a safe and efficient nationwide system of public-use airports that meets the present and future needs of civil aeronautics." Both the statutory framework and its legislative history confirm that Congress never intended to require airport sponsors to demonstrate project justification before receiving AIP entitlement funds. First, Congress did not require an airport sponsor to demonstrate an actual need in the statutes governing the issuance of grants. Under Sec. 47105, Congress allows a sponsor to apply for a grant if the sponsor (a) proposes a project for an airport identified in the NPIAS; (b) submits a proposed project description; (c) proposes an eligible "airport development" project, as defined in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47102(3); (d) proposes a project that complies with any applicable FAA technical standards, such as airport lighting guidance; and (e) provides other information requested by the FAA.6 Section 47106 outlines the factors the FAA must consider when evaluating the application. While one of the criteria is for the FAA to ensure the project "contribute[s] to carrying out this subchapter," Congress has outlined its policies and priorities for AIP, which are extremely broad, such as improving airport safety, security, and capacity; protecting the environment; and minimizing noise impacts; among other things.7 Second, under the statute, there are only two extremely nuanced cases where FAA must apply a "justification" or "airside needs test" requirement for a proposed project.8 The omission of these requirements-from the specific grant application requirements in Sec. 47105, grant approval conditions in Sec. 47106, and other provisions in Title 49 of the U.S. Code-demonstrates that Congress's intent is to not require the FAA to determine whether an airport sponsor has an actual need or justification for a proposed project more generally. Third, while we recognize the FAA's need to understand the justification for a project before awarding a discretionary grant, this same rationale does not apply to entitlement grants. Under Sec. 47114, which governs apportionments (also known as entitlements), Congress provided that the Secretary of Transportation "shall" apportion funds to specific airports on an annual basis. If the project is eligible, and the airport sponsor has the statutory right to the funds, we do not believe it is appropriate for the FAA to impose a justification requirement that is not in the statute and that Congress never intended to apply. Moreover, Congress directed the FAA to "discourage" a sponsor from using entitlement funds for "lower priority projects by giving lower priority to discretionary projects" submitted by the sponsor (which has used its entitlement funds for such a low-priority project).9 This provision presupposes that airport sponsors were given the discretion to decide the most appropriate use for their entitlement funds, albeit with potential impacts on its discretionary fund requests. Fourth, the FAA's reliance on the NPIAS report requirement as the basis for the justification test and needs-based determination is misguided. Section 47103(a) provides that the NPIAS must "include the kind and estimated cost of eligible airport development the [FAA] considers necessary to provide a safe, efficient, and integrated system of public-use airports adequate to anticipate and meet the needs of civil aeronautics." The purpose of the NPIAS is not to limit the projects for which an airport sponsor may use AIP funding. A plain reading of Title 49 of the U.S. Code indicates that the NPIAS is used to help Congress budget and evaluate the full scope of infrastructure needs across the system, by FAA for planning purposes to promote the development of an integrated airport system,10 to determine the airports that are eligible to receive a grant,11 to limit the projects that may be funded by airports designated in the unclassified status,12 and to determine the annual apportionment amount for each non-commercial service airport.13 Moreover, nothing in the legislative history of the NPIAS requirement suggests it was designed to impose additional hurdles for an airport sponsor to obtain a grant for eligible projects. In 1982, Congress began requiring the FAA to develop the NPIAS, replacing the former National Airport System Plan (NASP).14 The major shift from the NASP to the NPIAS was for FAA to focus on "integrated airport systems." This was a major congressional policy priority at the time because of the need to develop and improve reliever airports to alleviate traffic congestion at major airport hubs and increase capacity in metropolitan areas.15 Indeed, Congress also directed FAA to fund grants for, and prioritize projects that are consistent with, "integrated airport system planning," which the law defined to mean "developing for planning purposes information and guidance to decide the extent, kind, location, and timing of airport development needed in a specific area to establish a viable, balanced, and integrated system of public-use airports."16 In short, the NPIAS was created to establish the scope of airports (existing and new) that are needed for an "integrated airport system" and eligible for grants and to provide information and guidance to a range of stakeholders for planning purposes. Separate from the statutory framework, we believe, as a matter of policy, that FAA staff should give substantial deference to the judgment of airport sponsors on the appropriateness of a proposed project. Airport sponsors are public in nature with a public mission and unique knowledge of the needs and requirements of the facilities for which they are responsible. They have decades of experience in successfully utilizing federal grant dollars for worthy projects that enhance safety and meet the other objectives specified by Congress and the agency. Sponsors report to AAAE incurring significant costs to justify and explain to the FAA why the project is needed and why the sponsor should be allowed to use funds that it is entitled to under the law. We do not believe this is an efficient use of limited resources, and sponsors need more flexibility in order to maintain and grow their facilities safely and efficiently. In addition, with the FAA experiencing a significant decrease in its staffing, we believe the agency has a unique opportunity to adapt and adjust its procedures to make the existing workload on staff more manageable. Thus, we urge the FAA to eliminate or relax its requirement that sponsors demonstrate an actual need or justification for each proposed project before an AIP entitlement grant may be awarded.
3. At the very least, the FAA should simplify determinations that certain types of projects have the necessary justification and an actual need.
AAAE disagrees with the FAA's position that an airport sponsor must demonstrate an actual need for a proposed project in order to use AIP entitlement funds, including any argument that Sec. 47103 requires such a determination. Notwithstanding, the FAA has discretion to instruct and simplify the process for FAA field offices to determine what constitutes an actual need for a proposed project to meet the criteria. Indeed, nothing in Title 49 of the U.S. Code defines how the FAA is expected to determine, for purposes of the NPIAS, what types of airport development projects are "necessary to provide a safe, efficient, and integrated system of public-use airports adequate to anticipate and meet the needs of civil aeronautics . . . ."17
17. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47103(a).
Mr. William Garrison
August 17, 2026 | Page 7 of 12
AAAE urges the FAA to exercise its discretion and simplify the process for an FAA field office to make a determination that certain types of proposed projects have an actual need, including projects (a) that would be funded through an AIP entitlement grant or (b) where the federal share would be less than a specified threshold (e.g., 50 percent). If an airport sponsor is funding the majority of costs for a specific project, the FAA should presume there is an "actual need" for that project and the federal funds are not being used on a frivolous project. In such a case, a need-based determination is unnecessary, and the agency could simply presume projects falling into a certain category are necessary for meeting the needs of civil aeronautics.
4. The FAA should (a) limit the authority of field offices to require a BCA for "any" project and (b) increase the threshold that determines when a BCA is required for a project.
Under Sec. 47115(d), Congress only requires that the FAA consider a BCA before issuing a grant if (a) the project to be funded is for preserving and improving capacity and (b) the FAA is planning to use funds from its discretionary fund. No other types of projects receiving discretionary funds are required to undergo a BCA review.18 In the Draft AIP Handbook, the FAA provides that sponsors must prepare a BCA for capacity projects if it is requesting an amount of discretionary funding that exceeds a certain threshold. However, the FAA does not disclose the current threshold above which a sponsor must prepare a BCA for a project seeking discretionary funding.19 Separately, the FAA states that the agency "may" require a BCA for any other AIP project.20
We have two major concerns regarding the provisions on BCAs. First, if FAA field offices were given the authority to require a BCA for any project, regardless of funding amount, it would introduce new risks for an airport sponsor to execute a project in a reasonable timeframe. Any office could arbitrarily decide at any time that a project requires a BCA, even if the project has been in development for years and despite representations from staff that a BCA would not be required. This type of scenario could greatly extend a project's timeline. Second, ironically, many AAAE members expressed frustration with the high costs associated with preparing a BCA relative to its overall benefits in the case of most projects.
AAAE urges the FAA to make two changes to the directives on BCAs. First, the FAA should only require a BCA for projects for which Congress has directed the agency to evaluate the benefits and costs. This would only include capacity-enhancing projects receiving AIP discretionary funds. For all other projects, a BCA should remain optional supplemental information that an airport sponsor may provide if the sponsor believes it would help make the case to the FAA for a discretionary funding request. At the very least, the FAA should establish strict parameters for field offices when they may require a BCA to limit the overly broad discretion given to FAA field offices in the Draft AIP Handbook. Second, the FAA should increase the funding threshold that determines whether a BCA is required and index it for inflation.
18. See id. Sec. 47115(d)(2).19. Draft AIP Handbook, supra, at 2-10.20. Id. at 2-11.
Mr. William Garrison
August 17, 2026 | Page 8 of 12
FAA Field Office Authority
5. The FAA should provide increased flexibility, discretion, and decision-making authority to FAA field offices to accelerate reviews, and airport sponsors must be given an appeal option in case that discretion is abused or applied inconsistently.
As explained by the FAA in the preamble, one of the agency's stated objectives with the Draft AIP Handbook was to shift more decision-making and approvals to FAA field offices. AAAE is generally supportive of delegating increased authority to these offices, which would help accelerate reviews and approvals for airport sponsors. However, many AAAE members are concerned about the potential for abuse of that discretion or inconsistent application of the AIP across regions. An example is a case where one office approves a project grant while another office does not, despite factual circumstances being similar. Moreover, sponsors routinely report to AAAE that they are hesitant to elevate issues or concerns with decisions made by FAA field offices because of fear of retribution. Thus, we urge the FAA to establish and outline a procedure in the final handbook that allows sponsors to request further review from headquarters staff, without retribution or penalty, to ensure AIP policies and rules are consistently applied and in accordance with the intent of the agency.
6. The FAA must ensure adequate staffing levels in its field offices commensurate with increased responsibilities so that the handbook's objectives are achieved.
In 2025, the FAA experienced a significant reduction in staffing through deferred resignations, early retirements, and other initiatives. While safety-critical staff were exempt from the reductions, the agency reportedly lost a significant number of program managers, environmental protection specialists, and airport planners, among others, in the Office of Airports. These personnel are essential to facilitating the approvals required for sponsors to secure AIP grants, which provide vital funding for critical airport safety projects. Indeed, AAAE has received reports from its members that staffing issues at FAA have already led to delays with obtaining grant-related approvals. AAAE is concerned that the staffing reductions in FAA field offices, along with the increased decision-making authority, may lead to further delays in obtaining the necessary approvals. Therefore, we strongly urge the FAA to ensure that the agency has adequate local staff that is commensurate with their increased responsibilities.
Project-Specific Comments
7. The FAA should adopt the proposal to allow self-certification of eligible costs for terminal projects without limiting this self-certification option to projects that use $10 million or less in PFC revenue.
Under the Draft AIP Handbook, Appendix N outlines the eligibility and justification requirements for terminal development projects. These generally include projects within the terminal building and associated with the airside and landside areas that are directly related to the movement of passengers and baggage. Terminal projects typically have a mix of eligible and ineligible areas that require prorating the total project cost to properly allocate funding. (Costs are generally prorated using the ratio of eligible area to total area.) One notable change in the draft handbook is to streamline the process for determining allowable costs for terminal projects with both eligible and ineligible areas. Under the proposal, the FAA would allow airport sponsors (rather than FAA staff) to calculate and self-certify eligible costs if the sponsor is requesting that the FAA cover no more than 70 percent of the project's eligible costs.21
AAAE strongly supports the proposal to allow airport sponsors to self-certify eligible costs but urges the FAA to make one change. In Section N-2.2.1 of Appendix N, the FAA states that the self-certification option "may not be available" for airports that anticipate using more than $10 million in PFC funds for the project because they "are required to provide detailed basis of cost information."22 We believe this exception to the self-certification option should be eliminated. The $10 million cap would severely limit the availability of this option and would effectively prevent many larger airports from taking advantage of the expedited process. We do not believe the exception is necessary, and it is also unclear why the FAA established an arbitrary cap at $10 million. At the very least, the cap should be raised to $100 million (or $25 million to be consistent with the FAA's streamlined procedures for PFC authorizations).23
8. The FAA should eliminate the new justification requirement regarding primary runway reconstruction and rehabilitation projects (i.e., the 120-percent threshold).
Under the Draft AIP Handbook, Appendix B outlines the eligibility and justification requirements for projects associated with aircraft operational surfaces (AOS), including runways, taxiways, aprons, and taxilanes, among others. The draft document introduces a new justification requirement for runway reconstruction and rehabilitation projects that is not in the current AIP Handbook. Specifically, the FAA provides that full reconstruction or rehabilitation of a primary runway may only be conducted at its existing length if the runway is within 120 percent of the runway length needed by the airport's "critical aircraft," unless an exception applies.24 It is unclear why FAA added this 120-percent threshold, the rationale behind the policy change, and the intended application (including how it would apply to runways with existing dimensions that exceed current design needs). The provision also appears to focus only on runway length and does not address runway width. The consensus from AAAE members is that this new limitation is unnecessary and arbitrary and should be removed from the final handbook.
21. Draft AIP Handbook, supra, at N-10.22. Id.23. See Fed. Aviation Admin., PFC Update, PFC 73-20 (Jan. 22, 2020).24. Draft AIP Handbook, supra, at B-14.
Mr. William Garrison
August 17, 2026 | Page 10 of 12
9. The FAA should eliminate the new NEM annual certification requirement as a condition of receiving a grant for a noise mitigation project and address other questions regarding required documentation to obtain a grant for these projects.
Under the Draft AIP Handbook, Appendix I outlines the eligibility and justification requirements for airport noise compatibility programs under 14 C.F.R. pt. 150 and mitigation measures in an FAA environmental decision document for certain development projects. Table I-2.2 outlines "other considerations" for the FAA to fund a noise mitigation-related project. AAAE received many comments, concerns, and questions regarding the item, "Documentation is Current at Time of Each Funding Request," which discusses documentation from the airport sponsor that must be current to receive a noise mitigation project grant under AIP. The table states, in part:
"All documents for the implementation of remedial noise mitigation and noise abatement measures must be current at the time of each grant request. This includes [noise exposure maps (NEMs)]. In each year following the date of the FAA-accepted future NEM, sponsors must certify that the NEMs on file with the FAA accurately reflect current and projected operational conditions at the airport, sound insulation program implementation plans and acoustic test plans, and noise land inventory and reuse plans.
All maps that are five or more years old require written validation, which means the sponsor needs to explain why the accepted NEMs reflect the current or projected operational conditions at the airport for the associated noncompatible land uses. . . ." We have several concerns and questions regarding the item in Table I-2.2 on current documentation at the time of a funding request.
First, AAAE opposes the annual certification requirement regarding NEMs. The provision is not included in the current AIP Handbook, and the FAA has offered no explanation as to why an annual NEM certification is necessary or how this requirement differs from existing obligations. Indeed, Part 150 already requires airport sponsors to promptly prepare and submit a revised NEM to the FAA under certain conditions, including if a change in the operation of the airport creates a significant reduction in noise over existing noncompatible uses.25 We do not believe the certification requirement is necessary or appropriate and urge the FAA to remove it from the final handbook.
Second, we urge the FAA to clarify what specific documents must be current at the time of each grant request. Table I-2.2 states, "All documents for the implementation of remedial noise mitigation and noise abatement measures must be current at the time of each grant request. This includes NEMs." However, the FAA does not identify or discuss any other documents (besides NEMs) that need to be current. To prevent confusion, we recommend the FAA limit the applicability of the discussion to NEMs, unless the agency intended to discuss other documents that need to be current.
Third, we believe the FAA should update Table I-2.2 to provide a more comprehensive description of documentation that is required for an airport sponsor to receive a noise mitigation project grant under AIP. Sponsors should be provided with a reasonable understanding of the types of information that may be required during the grant application process. Sponsors have increasingly been asked to provide supplemental documentation that is not clearly identified in the current AIP Handbook or other existing guidance, such as information regarding specific neighborhoods proposed for testing or treatment within a noise contour. Clear handbook guidance would improve transparency, reduce uncertainty during project development, and promote more efficient grant processing.
Fourth, we believe the FAA should clarify the requirement that any NEM that is five or more years old requires "written validation" from the airport sponsor. Part 150 requires that NEMs be based "on forecast aircraft operations at the airport for a forecast period that is at least 5 years in the future."26 For a sponsor that developed an NEM with a forecast period greater than five years, it is unclear whether the validation requirement applies. We believe validation should only be required when a sponsor intends to use the NEM beyond the initial forecast period rather than an arbitrary fixed time (i.e., NEMs that are "five or more years old"). In addition, we believe the FAA should provide an estimated review timeline for this validation.
Deadlines and Expected FAA Review Timeframe
10. The FAA should (a) set deadlines for its field offices to complete the various reviews associated with AIP grants and (b) provide the expected review duration for each type of approval.
The FAA should implement deadlines for its staff to complete the various reviews associated with AIP grants and provide industry with an expected timeframe for field offices to complete those reviews. Before airport sponsors may receive an AIP grant, they must receive numerous approvals (or, in some cases, an FAA acceptance) associated with certain documents, including, but not limited to, airport layout plan (ALP) updates, aeronautical studies, aviation activity forecasts, airspace analyses, environmental analyses, modifications of standards, reimbursable agreements, construction safety and phasing plans (CSPPs), civil rights requirements, procurement processes, alternative project delivery contracts (if applicable), and grant applications. Unfortunately, FAA has never established deadlines for its staff or communicated expected review times to airport sponsors.
Under the current framework, the unpredictability of review timelines creates a bottleneck that stalls infrastructure projects, leaving airport sponsors unable to efficiently plan budgets, secure matching local funds, or begin projects during optimal construction seasons. Introducing deadlines and expected review times in the Draft AIP Handbook for each type of approval would lead to more accountability within FAA field offices, improve consistency of decision-making nationwide, enable sponsors to better plan and budget for their capital projects, and ensure that federal funds are deployed rapidly. Indeed, more transparent and predictable review process would allow airport sponsors to accelerate the delivery of critical-safety projects, expand capacity, and improve operational efficiency by reducing administrative delays.
* * *
AAAE appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft AIP Handbook. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or require any additional information. I can be reached at justin.barkowski@aaae.org or at (703) 824-0504.
Sincerely,
Justin T. Barkowski
Legislative and Regulatory Counsel
Enclosure
Ensure Web Tools Remain Current
FAA discusses moving broadly applicable information about the AIP to the FAA's website. In addition, the FAA mentions an AIP funding tool that will also be on the website at the time of final publication. While AAAE is supportive of this approach and tool, we want to make sure the information online stays current and consistent with official orders, program guidance letters, and other information released by the FAA. Ensure any guidance added online includes clear publication dates, effective dates, or version information. This would help sponsors determine whether online guidance, tools, and related materials reflect the most recent changes in guidance. Comment ensures an airport sponsor can understand where a requirement comes from and whether the existing version of a specific document is current. Preamble Page i-vi-i-vii Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Include Additional Eligible Project Formulation Costs
Section 2-3.6.6.8.1 discusses the scope of project formulation costs (incurred before the grant agreement is executed) that are eligible for reimbursement. Some AAAE members urged the FAA to include additional costs as eligible. Consider including certain procurement actions as eligible project formulation costs, such as EMAS systems where only one FAA-approved vendor exists. Comment improves clarity or the application of a policy in the document. Chapter 2 Page 2-28 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Reference NPIAS and ACIP Formulation Order
Section 3-2.2.2 includes useful information regarding project phasing and overall development objectives. This topic ties closely to FAA Order 5090.5, Formulation of the NPIAS and ACIP, although there is no mention of the order in the section. Include a reference or explanation of the relationship between Section 3-2.2.2 and FAA Order 5090.5, which would help connect planning requirements with grant application guidance. Comment improves internal consistency and/or cross-references with other FAA guidance. Chapter 3 Page 3-4 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Address Outdated PERADA Checklist References
Section 3-2.3 discusses pre-grant application processes and states that an FAA field office may use FAA Form 5100-109, AIP Project Evaluation Review and Development Analysis (PERADA). This form currently contains references to FAA Order 5100.38D and will be outdated if not updated when the final Order 5100.38E is published. Ensure that FAA Form 5100-109 is updated at the time of publishing FAA Order 5100.38E. Comment ensures an airport sponsor can understand where a requirement comes from and whether the existing version of a specific document is current. Chapter 3 Page 3-5 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Clarify Acquisition of Good Title Language
Section 3-3.1.1 states that for the FAA "[t]o issue a grant where good title to the airport operating areas (AOA) is not yet in place, but is being acquired, FAA policy requires that the acquisition of good title must be in process." Several AAAE members wanted more clarification about what "in process" means and how an airport sponsor would manage the Exhibit A requirement in these circumstances. Provide more guidance on when the acquisition of good title is considered to be "in process" and how an airport sponsor would fulfill the Exhibit A requirement in these circumstances. Comment identifies an ambiguous or incomplete instruction or directive to FAA field offices. Chapter 3 Page 3-5 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Correct Cross-Reference to Appendix K
Section 3-3.1.3.1 directs users to Appendix K for additional information on consultation with airport users as part of a planning effort. However, Appendix K does not appear to mention consultations. Confirm or correct that the cross-reference to Appendix K is accurate. Comment improves internal consistency and/or cross-references with other FAA guidance. Chapter 3 Page 3-6-3-7 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Discuss EO 12372 in Intergovernmental Review Section
Section 3-3.1.3.2 discusses an airport sponsor's intergovernmental review requirements for federally funded projects. However, there is no discussion on Executive Order 12372 despite multiple references to the order and requirement in the intergovernmental/state review section of FAA's grant application (SF-424). Provide an overview and discussion of Executive Order 12372 to ensure airport sponsors submitting an FAA grant application better understand those requirements. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-7 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Consider More Precise Topic Header
The header for Section 3-3.2, "Compliance Prerequisites," may be broader than the content indicates. Consider changing the header to "Grant Assurance Compliance Prerequisites," which seems to more accurately describe the section focused on grant assurance compliance. Comment improves a name, definition, or term to ensure clarity for airport sponsors. Chapter 3 Page 3-7 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Address BABA with Buy America Requirements
Section 3-3.2.2 discusses Buy America requirements under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 50101 but does not reference Build America, Buy America (BABA) requirements. FAA guidance indicates BABA applies to AIP-funded projects and expands domestic preference requirements beyond traditional Buy America, particularly for construction materials. Clarify how airport sponsors should understand both requirements (BABA and Buy America) together. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-7-3-8 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Discuss DOT Waiver of Buy America Requirements for De Minimis Costs and Small Grants
Neither Section 3-3.2.2, which covers Buy America requirements, nor the FAA's website (which is linked to in the Draft AIP Handbook) discusses DOT's August 16, 2023 "Waiver of Buy America Requirements for De Minimis Costs and Small Grants" (88 Fed. Reg. 55817). Clarify how airport sponsors and their contractors may utilize the DOT waiver of BABA requirements for de minimis costs and small grants, which the department issued in August 2023. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-7-3-8 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Align Wording in Section on Exceeding FAA Standards
Section 3-3.2.4.3 discusses when an FAA field office may fund a project that exceeds FAA standards. The second paragraph states: "Proactive improvements to sustain operations and permit resumption of operations following natural disasters per 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47102 are also deemed justified by ARP Headquarters . . . ." This is an incorrect restatement of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47102(3)(T). Correct the language to use "or" instead of "and" in order for the sentence to be consistent with 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47102(3)(T). Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-9 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Consider Allowing Local Building Standards for Terminal Projects
Sections 3-3.2.4.4 and 3-3.2.4.5 discuss when state standards may be used in lieu of FAA standards and notes that some eligible projects do not have FAA standards, procedures, policy, plans, or specifications. Some AAAE members urged FAA to allow and/or accept the use of local building standards for terminal projects where FAA has no standards. Consider allowing airport sponsors to use local building standards for terminal projects where FAA has no standards. Comment identifies an ambiguous or incomplete instruction or directive to FAA field offices. Chapter 3 Page 3-9-3-10 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Align DBE Threshold Requirement with Regulation
Table 3-3.1 states that an airport sponsor must have a DBE program "if it will award $250,000 in AIP funding during a Federal fiscal year." The DBE regulation uses different phrasing regarding when a sponsor must have a DBE program. Correct the language to align with 49 C.F.R. Sec. 26.21(a)(3), which states that FAA recipients must have a DBE program if they are "receiving grants for airport planning or development that will award prime contractors the cumulative total value of which exceeds $250,000 in FAA funds in a Federal fiscal year." The final Order 5100.38E should align more closely with the regulation. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-11, Table 3-3.1 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Confirm New Sponsor Review Process Applies
In the current AIP Handbook, Table 3-12(a) requires the FAA field office to inform new airport sponsors of the required intergovernmental project review process in accordance with FAA Order 1200.21. However, this requirement is not stated in the Draft AIP Handbook, and it is unclear whether it remains in effect. Clarify whether the appropriate FAA regional office or ADO must continue to notify sponsors of this process. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Not applicable Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Clarify Timing of Economic Price Adjustments Provision
Section 3-4.1.2 discusses FAA's authority in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47108 that allows the agency to include a provision in a grant agreement under which the FAA agrees to pay more than the maximum amount otherwise specified in the agreement if commodity or labor prices have increased since the grant agreement was executed. It is unclear, however, whether this provision must be included in the original grant agreement or may be added later through an amendment. Clarify whether the economic price adjustments provision may be added to a grant agreement after it has been executed. Comment identifies an ambiguous or incomplete instruction or directive to FAA field offices. Chapter 3 Page 3-13-3-14 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
AIP Comment Import Template to AIP Handbook 5100.38E
Address Inconsistencies on Alternative Project Delivery Contracts Section
Section 3-4.2.7 discusses the circumstances under which FAA may authorize an airport sponsor to use an alternative project delivery contract method in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47142. Section 47142 was recently amended by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 and after FAA AC 150/5100-14 was last update. This has created inconsistencies between the draft AIP Handbook and FAA AC 150/5100-14. Ensure Section 3-4.2.7 explains that FAA AC 150/5100-14 does not represent the latest guidance from FAA on the use of alternative project delivery contract methods. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-17 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Clarify Language on Consultant Contract Extensions
Section 3-4.2.13.2 appears incomplete or potentially inconsistent with Section 2.7.2.4 of FAA AC 150/5100-14E. The Draft AIP Handbook seems to impose a strict prohibition on extending consultant services contracts beyond five years. However, the AC states that a project initiated in the first five years may continue beyond the initial contract duration, but no new projects should be initiated without a new procurement action. Clarify and/or address the inconsistencies between Section 3-4.2.13.2 of the Draft AIP Handbook and Section 2.7.2.4 of FAA AC 150/5100-14E. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 3 Page 3-21 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Set Threshold When Construction Management Programs Are Required
In the current AIP Handbook, FAA only requires a construction management program (CMP) to be submitted to a field office if the project has a total pavement construction contract value over $500,000. A CMP ensures quality control and compliance with applicable construction standards. Unfortunately, the Draft AIP Handbook does not specify any threshold (above which a CMP is required), implying that all projects require a CMP. Specify that an airport sponsor must only submit a CMP if the project has a total pavement construction contract value over $1,000,000 (if not higher). We believe an adjustment for rising construction costs is appropriate because the $500,000 threshold was last established in 2014. Comment identifies a gap or conflict between text in the Draft AIP Handbook and a controlling external authority (statute, regulation, or other order or guidance document). Chapter 4 Page 4-21 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Include DCL in Appendix A as Acronym
DCL, discretionary candidate list, is a common FAA phrase used in the Draft AIP Handbook but is not included in Appendix A. DCL should be included in Appendix A to allow readers to understand the abbreviation without relying on external knowledge. Comment improves a name, definition, or term to ensure clarity for airport sponsors. Appendix A Pages A-1-A-5 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Adjust Justification Requirement for Apron Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Projects
Table B-5.2 classifies apron projects as either rehabilitation or reconstruction based on a 30 percent area or panel replacement threshold. Projects addressing less than 30 percent of an apron are categorized as rehabilitation, whereas projects affecting 30 percent or more are classified as reconstruction. Some AAAE members expressed concern that this threshold was arbitrary and would reset the useful life for a large portion of apron pavement that may only last 10 years and not the full 20 years. Consider replacing the current 30 percent threshold with a two-thirds (66.7 percent) threshold before reclassifying a concrete panel project from rehabilitation to reconstruction. This would allow airport sponsors to replace up to 66 percent of failing apron panels under a simpler rehabilitation process, reducing bureaucratic hurdles and engineering costs. Comment improves clarity or the application of a policy in the document. Appendix B Page B-22 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Expand Eligibility of EMAS-Related Projects
Table C-3.1 outlines the justification requirements for projects to construct, reconstruct, and rehabilitate Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS). EMAS installations are critical safety infrastructure that provide a proven means of reducing the consequences of runway overruns. Some AAAE members support the current language that recognizes the eligibility of EMAS replacement when panels are destroyed by an aircraft and no other funding source, such as insurance, is available. However, like other airfield safety systems, EMAS requires periodic inspection, testing, evaluation, and rehabilitation to ensure it will perform as designed when needed. The Draft AIP Handbook does not clearly identify these activities as eligible for AIP funding. Some AAAE members urged the FAA to consider strengthening the language regarding EMAS to explicitly recognize testing, rehabilitation, and restoration activities as AIP-eligible projects. This should allow AIP funding for: (a) the testing and evaluation necessary to verify the continued operational effectiveness of an EMAS installation; (b) the rehabilitation, restoration, or repair of EMAS components that have deteriorated due to age, weather exposure, settlement, or other operational factors; (c) the restoration of EMAS systems following aircraft engagements when insurance proceeds or other funding sources are unavailable or insufficient to return the system to its original design standard; and (d) the periodic assessments necessary to determine remaining service life and identify corrective actions required to maintain operational readiness. Providing this clarification would promote consistency among FAA regions, help airport sponsors maintain critical runway safety infrastructure, and ensure EMAS systems remain fully functional throughout their service life. Comment improves clarity or the application of a policy in the document. Appendix C Pages C-7-C-8 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Relax Justification Requirements for Certain Service Road Projects
Table C-4.1 outlines justification requirements for air operations projects. For the construction, improvement, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of service roads, the FAA states that "[e]ligibility for new construction is tied to the overall development objective and should be constructed with the project requiring the need for the service road." Non-public airside service roads directly enhance capacity by keeping service vehicles off active taxiways. Tying a new service road to an eligible facility is more restrictive than operational needs. Consider new language that allows more flexibility at airports that could benefit from new service roads to eliminate service vehicles on active AOA surfaces. Comment improves clarity or the application of a policy in the document. Appendix C Pages C-16-C-17 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Clarify Stand-Alone Marking Projects
Appendix F outlines the eligibility and justification requirements for lighting, signage, and marking projects needed to support eligible aircraft operational surfaces. Table F-3.3 provides that stand-alone marking projects are not eligible at large hub airports. However, Section F-2.2.1 states that there is a general exception for stand-alone lighting, signage, and marking projects to correct a documented safety requirement, deficiency, violation, or recommendation. Clarify that the general exception explained in Section F-2.2.1 applies to large hub airports notwithstanding the exclusion identified in Table F-3.3. Comment improves clarity or the application of a policy in the document. Appendix F Page F-3 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Allow Stand-Alone Airfield Lighting Control and Monitoring System Projects in Some Cases
Table F-3.1 provides that stand-alone projects involving airfield lighting control and monitoring systems (ALCMSs) are excluded work and not eligible. This exclusion would limit the ability for airports with a robust airfield electrical replacement program from replacing these systems if their airfield electrical is in good condition. It may also prompt some airport sponsors to replace otherwise good lighting altogether with the ALMCS. Consider allowing a stand-alone ALCMS project if greater than 40 percent of the airport's lighting has been replaced in the past 10 years. Comment improves clarity or the application of a policy in the document. Appendix F Page F-7 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Define or Clarify "Level of Service"
Appendix N, which discusses eligibility and justification requirements for airport terminal projects, uses the term "level or service" (or "levels of service") in a number of occasions, but the term is ambiguous and undefined. Clarify or explain the FAA's intent with regards to "level of service" to help airport sponsors understand how it is applied in the context of eligibility and justification requirements for terminal projects. Comment improves a name, definition, or term to ensure clarity for airport sponsors. Appendix N Pages N-9, N-11, N-12 Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Provide Sponsors with the FAA's Project Work Codes
In the current AIP Handbook, the FAA identified the various agency work codes associated with each type of project. Some AAAE members expressed concern that removal of the work codes from eligible project descriptions may introduce ambiguity or confusion between airport sponsors and the FAA regarding the exact scope or eligibility of projects. Provide sponsors with the overall development objective work codes associated with each project, either in the existing appendices or in a separate FAA document. Comment improves a name, definition, or term to ensure clarity for airport sponsors. Appendix B-Appendix O Not applicable Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Provide Examples for Standardized Justification Requirements
Justification requirements appear to be standardized across multiple project appendices using generic language. Some AAAE members expressed concern that the generic language and standardization makes it harder to understand the FAA's expectations regarding eligibility and justification requirements. Consider including examples to help airport sponsors understand how common projects satisfy these requirements. For example, the FAA could explain how a typical Part 150 noise mitigation project in Table I-2.1 satisfies one of the three congressionally directed priorities. Comment improves clarity of a specific policy in the document. Appendix B-Appendix O Not applicable Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Enumerate Contents in Each Table with Letter or Number
In the current AIP Handbook, each table has letters (e.g., a, b, c) for each line of the table to help with citations and references. Some AAAE members indicated that the text inside each table in the Draft AIP Handbook is often difficult to cite or reference because there are no letters or numbers. Consider enumerating lines within each table with letters to make citations more specific and improve usability during coordination between airport sponsors and FAA field offices. Comment improves internal consistency and/or cross-references with other FAA guidance. General Comment Not applicable Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Identify Sources of FAA Policy References
Several requirements throughout the Draft AIP Handbook are attributed to FAA policy ("By FAA policy" or "Per FAA policy") without identifying the underlying source of the policy. Ensure that if the Draft AIP Handbook is the source of the policy, that should be stated directly. If the policy originates in another FAA order, memorandum, or guidance document, the source should be cited. Comment ensures an airport sponsor can understand where a requirement comes from and whether the existing version of a specific document is current. General Comment Not applicable Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
Clarify Definitions of Certain Types of Projects
In the current AIP Handbook, Table I-2 explains the distinction between construct, extend, widen, strengthen, and rehabilitate, and Table 3-2 explains the differences between maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and replacement projects. Table 2-2.1 in the Draft AIP Handbook provides clarity between construction, routine work, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. The draft document also uses many of these terms as project categories and unit-of-work labels but does not appear to define them. This has led to questions from AAAE members and may lead to confusion about how the FAA defines them. Definitions are important because these terms have major implications for project eligibility and the applicable amount of useful life that applies. Clarify how the FAA defines and evaluates the terms in Table 3-2 and Table I-2 from the current AIP Handbook. Comment improves a name, definition, or term to ensure clarity for airport sponsors. General Comment Not applicable Justin Barkowski American Association of Airport Executives Trade association Alexandria Virginia justin.barkowski@aaae.org
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2026-4006-0028
Alzheimer's Policy Working Group Urges Modernization of Medicare Coverage to Improve Alzheimer's Treatment Access
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
August 10, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION
The Hon. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Secretary
Department of Health and Human Services
RE: Request for Information on the Update to the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease
Dear Secretary Kennedy,
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Department of Health and Human Services' Request for Information regarding the update to the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. August 10, 2026 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION The Hon. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Human Services RE: Request for Information on the Update to the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease Dear Secretary Kennedy, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Department of Health and Human Services' Request for Information regarding the update to the National Plan to Address Alzheimer'sDisease.
As a neurologist in rural Michigan, I have seen firsthand how barriers to timely diagnosis and treatment can prevent patients from benefiting from recent advances in Alzheimer's care. We now have blood-based biomarkers that can facilitate earlier and more accurate diagnosis, growing evidence supporting lifestyle interventions that may help slow cognitive decline, and disease-modifying therapies for appropriate patients. In my clinical practice, I am using blood biomarker testing to reduce time to diagnosis, reduce the need for more expensive diagnosis tests (amyloid PET scans), and improve outcomes as more patients are accessing disease modifying medications. The availability of blood biomarker testing for Alzheimer's disease is the key to equal access to diagnosis and treatments. However, these advances cannot improve outcomes if patients are unable to access them.
Today, one of the most significant barriers to timely Alzheimer's care is Medicare and insurance coverage policies that have not kept pace with scientific progress.
Medicare's Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) policy continues to require additional government-approved registry participation and data collection as a condition of coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer's treatments. When Medicare - the nation's largest healthcare payer - treats FDA approval as insufficient for routine coverage, private insurers often follow its lead. Many private insurers have adopted similarly restrictive coverage policies, subjecting patients to repeated prior authorizations, coverage denials, and treatment interruptions even after physicians have determined that treatment is medically appropriate. (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Medical Drug Policy: Leqembi (lecanemab-irmb). Policy No. 2171624. Updated April 1, 2026. https://www.bcbsm.com/amslibs/content/dam/public/mpr/mprsearch/pdf/2171624.pdf)
The experience of one of my patients, Lori Baetz, illustrates the real-world consequences of these policies. An FDA-approved anti-amyloid therapy helped her retain independence and continue many of her daily activities. After she retired and lost her employer-sponsored insurance, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan denied coverage for her treatment. Although she ultimately prevailed in a state appeal establishing that the treatment was medically necessary and consistent with the standard of care, the insurer repeatedly failed to reimburse the health system for treatment. Her experience demonstrates that scientific breakthroughs cannot improve patients' lives if coverage policies prevent them from receiving or continuing medically appropriate care.
For a progressive disease like Alzheimer's, every delay matters. While waiting for insurance approval or enduring denials, patients may progress beyond the stage at which available therapies are indicated, losing valuable time to preserve their independence and quality of life.
As HHS updates the National Plan, I encourage the Department to prioritize policies that ensure timely access to evidence-based Alzheimer's diagnostics and treatments. This includes modernizing Medicare coverage policies to keep pace with FDA-authorized innovations, reducing unnecessary administrative barriers that delay care, and promoting continuity-of-care protections so that patients who have begun treatment are not subjected to avoidable coverage disruptions.
Thank you for considering these comments and for your continued commitment to improving the lives of people living with Alzheimer's disease and their families.
Sincerely,
Cara Leahy, DO
Director of Cognitive Disorders
Memorial Healthcare Institute for Neuroscience
Alzheimer's Policy Working Group
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-ASPE-2026-0298-0145
August 10, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION
The Hon. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Secretary
Department of Health and Human Services
RE: Request for Information on the Update to the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease
Dear Secretary Kennedy,
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Department of Health and Human Services' Request for Information regarding the update to the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. August 10, 2026 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION The Hon. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Human Services RE: Request for Information on the Update to the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease Dear Secretary Kennedy, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Department of Health and Human Services' Request for Information regarding the update to the National Plan to Address Alzheimer'sDisease.
As a neurologist in rural Michigan, I have seen firsthand how barriers to timely diagnosis and treatment can prevent patients from benefiting from recent advances in Alzheimer's care. We now have blood-based biomarkers that can facilitate earlier and more accurate diagnosis, growing evidence supporting lifestyle interventions that may help slow cognitive decline, and disease-modifying therapies for appropriate patients. In my clinical practice, I am using blood biomarker testing to reduce time to diagnosis, reduce the need for more expensive diagnosis tests (amyloid PET scans), and improve outcomes as more patients are accessing disease modifying medications. The availability of blood biomarker testing for Alzheimer's disease is the key to equal access to diagnosis and treatments. However, these advances cannot improve outcomes if patients are unable to access them.
Today, one of the most significant barriers to timely Alzheimer's care is Medicare and insurance coverage policies that have not kept pace with scientific progress.
Medicare's Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) policy continues to require additional government-approved registry participation and data collection as a condition of coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer's treatments. When Medicare - the nation's largest healthcare payer - treats FDA approval as insufficient for routine coverage, private insurers often follow its lead. Many private insurers have adopted similarly restrictive coverage policies, subjecting patients to repeated prior authorizations, coverage denials, and treatment interruptions even after physicians have determined that treatment is medically appropriate. (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Medical Drug Policy: Leqembi (lecanemab-irmb). Policy No. 2171624. Updated April 1, 2026. https://www.bcbsm.com/amslibs/content/dam/public/mpr/mprsearch/pdf/2171624.pdf)
The experience of one of my patients, Lori Baetz, illustrates the real-world consequences of these policies. An FDA-approved anti-amyloid therapy helped her retain independence and continue many of her daily activities. After she retired and lost her employer-sponsored insurance, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan denied coverage for her treatment. Although she ultimately prevailed in a state appeal establishing that the treatment was medically necessary and consistent with the standard of care, the insurer repeatedly failed to reimburse the health system for treatment. Her experience demonstrates that scientific breakthroughs cannot improve patients' lives if coverage policies prevent them from receiving or continuing medically appropriate care.
For a progressive disease like Alzheimer's, every delay matters. While waiting for insurance approval or enduring denials, patients may progress beyond the stage at which available therapies are indicated, losing valuable time to preserve their independence and quality of life.
As HHS updates the National Plan, I encourage the Department to prioritize policies that ensure timely access to evidence-based Alzheimer's diagnostics and treatments. This includes modernizing Medicare coverage policies to keep pace with FDA-authorized innovations, reducing unnecessary administrative barriers that delay care, and promoting continuity-of-care protections so that patients who have begun treatment are not subjected to avoidable coverage disruptions.
Thank you for considering these comments and for your continued commitment to improving the lives of people living with Alzheimer's disease and their families.
Sincerely,
Cara Leahy, DO
Director of Cognitive Disorders
Memorial Healthcare Institute for Neuroscience
Alzheimer's Policy Working Group
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HHS-ASPE-2026-0298-0145
Air Line Pilots Association: FAA Moves Toward Allowing Supersonic Overland Flight Under New Noise Standards
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
August 17, 2026
U.S. Department of Transportation
Docket Operations, M-30
West Building Ground Floor
Room W12-140
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Subject:
Docket No.: FAA-2026-6935; Notice No.26-07 RIN 2120-AM15
Enabling Supersonic Overland Flight
IN SUPPORT WITH COMMENT
Dear Sir or Madam:
The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), representing the safety interests of more than 80,000 professional ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. August 17, 2026 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Subject: Docket No.: FAA-2026-6935; Notice No.26-07 RIN 2120-AM15 Enabling Supersonic Overland Flight IN SUPPORT WITH COMMENT Dear Sir or Madam: The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), representing the safety interests of more than 80,000 professionalairline pilots flying for 42 airlines in the United States and Canada, has reviewed the subject document.
On July 2, 2026, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would repeal the 53-year-old ban on civil supersonic flight over U.S. land and replace it with a performance-based noise standard: aircraft may exceed Mach 1 overland if sonic boom overpressure at the surface stays at or below 0.11 pounds per square foot (psf). The rule implements Executive Order 14304, "Leading the World in Supersonic Flight" (June 6, 2025), and is framed as the first of several rulemakings - it covers only en route noise, leaving landing-and-takeoff (LTO) noise standards to a later, separate rulemaking activity.
The NPRM revises 14 CFR Sec. 91.817 (retitled "Civil Supersonic Flight") and makes conforming changes to Sec. 91.818. Its core elements:
Repealing the speed-based prohibition
Since 1973, Sec. 91.817 has barred any civil aircraft from exceeding Mach 1 over the U.S. except under an individually issued Special Flight Authorization (SFA) - only four have ever been granted. FAA proposes to repeal this blanket ban and replace it with a noise-based standard that does not depend on speed at all.
Instituting the 0.11 psf noise threshold
Proposing to allow supersonic overland flight only if sonic boom overpressure at the surface, covering primary booms, secondary "direct" booms, and secondary "indirect" booms, does not exceed 0.11 psf.
Replacing the SFA with a three-part authorization pathway
Allowing authorization of supersonic overland without a per-flight SFA if the operator:
o operates within the 0.11 psf limit,
o demonstrates to FAA- by measurement, modeling, or another FAA-approved method- and receives an Administrator "finding", and
o complies with any FAA-issued conditions and limitations. Once granted, the finding is durable rather than per-flight or per-area, a significant procedural loosening relative to today's SFA process.
Limiting scope to en-route noise only
This rule addresses only the en route (cruise) sonic boom. Landing-and-takeoff (LTO) noise standards are explicitly reserved for a future rulemaking, and FAA does not expect to receive supersonic type-certificate applications until that rule exists. The SFA process remains available, unchanged, for research and testing where booms may reach the surface in controlled areas.
Potential Gaps
While ALPA supports the NPRM, there are potential gaps as it pertains to compliance and verification of the proposed noise threshold:
o Should an operator demonstrate initial compliance during flight test, how will an operator be able to ensure this limit is continuously met during actual operations, and how does the FAA intend to verify this continued compliance?
Different combinations of aircraft speed, maneuvers, aerodynamics, and atmospheric conditions could result in different pressure waves. Avoiding exceedances, given variances in atmospheric conditions throughout the entire airplane's flight envelope, presently seems implausible.
o The 0.11 psf limit is the only substantive limit described in the NPRM. The cumulative effects of multiple pressure waves over time should be evaluated and taken into consideration.
A singular pressure wave at 0.11 psf perhaps may not be a nuisance, however, multiple supersonic operations over a concentrated area, would set off a repetitive sequence of pressure waves, which may be a nuisance to the public.
The NPRM states operators would be required to operate under any conditions and limitations issued by the Administrator. It is imperative that affected stakeholders are consulted prior to the FAA publishing any special conditions or exemptions, particularly due to supersonic flight being nascent.
Additionally, emergent manufacturing designs resulting from, or in response to, these regulatory changes should be meticulously evaluated, maintaining the current standard of safety assessment. Any relaxation, such as OEMs and operators developing their own means of compliance, must not result in a transfer of authority or a reduction in the regulator-imposed safety margins previously in place.
ALPA is a proponet for technological advancement for the enhancement of safety. With respect to long-standing regulations however, change should be gradual, sufficiently demonstrating achievement of the same or higher level of safety.
Sincerely,
Captain Christopher W. Sidor
Aircraft Design and Operations Group (ADO), Chair
Air Line Pilots Association, International
Air Safety Organization (ASO)
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2026-6935-0468
August 17, 2026
U.S. Department of Transportation
Docket Operations, M-30
West Building Ground Floor
Room W12-140
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Subject:
Docket No.: FAA-2026-6935; Notice No.26-07 RIN 2120-AM15
Enabling Supersonic Overland Flight
IN SUPPORT WITH COMMENT
Dear Sir or Madam:
The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), representing the safety interests of more than 80,000 professional ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. August 17, 2026 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Subject: Docket No.: FAA-2026-6935; Notice No.26-07 RIN 2120-AM15 Enabling Supersonic Overland Flight IN SUPPORT WITH COMMENT Dear Sir or Madam: The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), representing the safety interests of more than 80,000 professionalairline pilots flying for 42 airlines in the United States and Canada, has reviewed the subject document.
On July 2, 2026, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would repeal the 53-year-old ban on civil supersonic flight over U.S. land and replace it with a performance-based noise standard: aircraft may exceed Mach 1 overland if sonic boom overpressure at the surface stays at or below 0.11 pounds per square foot (psf). The rule implements Executive Order 14304, "Leading the World in Supersonic Flight" (June 6, 2025), and is framed as the first of several rulemakings - it covers only en route noise, leaving landing-and-takeoff (LTO) noise standards to a later, separate rulemaking activity.
The NPRM revises 14 CFR Sec. 91.817 (retitled "Civil Supersonic Flight") and makes conforming changes to Sec. 91.818. Its core elements:
Repealing the speed-based prohibition
Since 1973, Sec. 91.817 has barred any civil aircraft from exceeding Mach 1 over the U.S. except under an individually issued Special Flight Authorization (SFA) - only four have ever been granted. FAA proposes to repeal this blanket ban and replace it with a noise-based standard that does not depend on speed at all.
Instituting the 0.11 psf noise threshold
Proposing to allow supersonic overland flight only if sonic boom overpressure at the surface, covering primary booms, secondary "direct" booms, and secondary "indirect" booms, does not exceed 0.11 psf.
Replacing the SFA with a three-part authorization pathway
Allowing authorization of supersonic overland without a per-flight SFA if the operator:
o operates within the 0.11 psf limit,
o demonstrates to FAA- by measurement, modeling, or another FAA-approved method- and receives an Administrator "finding", and
o complies with any FAA-issued conditions and limitations. Once granted, the finding is durable rather than per-flight or per-area, a significant procedural loosening relative to today's SFA process.
Limiting scope to en-route noise only
This rule addresses only the en route (cruise) sonic boom. Landing-and-takeoff (LTO) noise standards are explicitly reserved for a future rulemaking, and FAA does not expect to receive supersonic type-certificate applications until that rule exists. The SFA process remains available, unchanged, for research and testing where booms may reach the surface in controlled areas.
Potential Gaps
While ALPA supports the NPRM, there are potential gaps as it pertains to compliance and verification of the proposed noise threshold:
o Should an operator demonstrate initial compliance during flight test, how will an operator be able to ensure this limit is continuously met during actual operations, and how does the FAA intend to verify this continued compliance?
Different combinations of aircraft speed, maneuvers, aerodynamics, and atmospheric conditions could result in different pressure waves. Avoiding exceedances, given variances in atmospheric conditions throughout the entire airplane's flight envelope, presently seems implausible.
o The 0.11 psf limit is the only substantive limit described in the NPRM. The cumulative effects of multiple pressure waves over time should be evaluated and taken into consideration.
A singular pressure wave at 0.11 psf perhaps may not be a nuisance, however, multiple supersonic operations over a concentrated area, would set off a repetitive sequence of pressure waves, which may be a nuisance to the public.
The NPRM states operators would be required to operate under any conditions and limitations issued by the Administrator. It is imperative that affected stakeholders are consulted prior to the FAA publishing any special conditions or exemptions, particularly due to supersonic flight being nascent.
Additionally, emergent manufacturing designs resulting from, or in response to, these regulatory changes should be meticulously evaluated, maintaining the current standard of safety assessment. Any relaxation, such as OEMs and operators developing their own means of compliance, must not result in a transfer of authority or a reduction in the regulator-imposed safety margins previously in place.
ALPA is a proponet for technological advancement for the enhancement of safety. With respect to long-standing regulations however, change should be gradual, sufficiently demonstrating achievement of the same or higher level of safety.
Sincerely,
Captain Christopher W. Sidor
Aircraft Design and Operations Group (ADO), Chair
Air Line Pilots Association, International
Air Safety Organization (ASO)
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2026-6935-0468
4 Environmental Groups Applaud Tiered Approach to Grizzly Bear Protections and Call for Clarification
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
Comment on the Proposed Revisions to the Protective Regulations for Grizzly Bears, RIN 1018-BI14 Property and Environment Research Center, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club, and Wyoming Wildlife Federation August 17, 2026 Dir. Nesvik,
The Property and Environment Research Center, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club, and Wyoming Wildlife Federation applaud the Fish and Wildlife Service ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. Comment on the Proposed Revisions to the Protective Regulations for Grizzly Bears, RIN 1018-BI14 Property and Environment Research Center, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club, and Wyoming Wildlife Federation August 17, 2026 Dir. Nesvik, The Property and Environment Research Center, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club, and Wyoming Wildlife Federation applaud the Fish and Wildlife Servicefor its proposal to separate the revision to the grizzly bear listing from the revision of the 4(d) rule-and to embrace an innovative tiered approach to the 4(d) rule that encourages and extends recovery progress.1
This new approach is a fitting next step for one of the Endangered Species Act's signature conservation success stories: Increasing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population from a mere 136 bears in 1975 to more than 1,055 bears today. Abandoning the previously proposed "distinct population segment" (DPS) ensures the 4(d) revision can carry that progress forward to eventual de-listing.
The controversial DPS proposal-based on a strained interpretation of "distinct population segment" that disregards connectivity between bears in the lower 48 and Canada while penalizing connectivity between populations in the lower 48-contradicts Congressional intent on when this provision should be applied. It should be discarded. The Service has never adequately explained the ecological significance of international boundaries nor why the significance of the southern portion of the grizzly's range in North America requires anything more than the successful recovery program we have. The 1996 policy on which the needless DPS proposal was based needs reform, but that reconsideration should not delay a much needed revision to the 4(d) rule.2
See Prop. & Envt. Res. Center et al., Comment on the Proposed Grizzly Bear Listing with a Revised 4(d) Rule (May 16, 2025).1 Fish & Wildlife Serv., Proposed Revision of the Grizzly Bear Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d), 91 Fed. Reg. 44,780 (July 17, 2026).
We are especially pleased that the Service has proposed a "tiered" approach to authorizing state management because this adapts recovery policy to the new issues raised by the returning abundance of bears. Addressing those issues will improve social tolerance of bears and increase support for continued conservation progress-and it will also facilitate the eventual transition to full state management upon eventual delisting. We proposed such a tiered approach for these reasons in our comment on the Service's 2025 proposal.3 Rather than repeat everything we said in that comment, we incorporate it by reference and summarize its main points below. This is a truly innovative approach that promises to improve conservation not only of grizzly bears but many other species.
To date, 4(d) rules have been written statically, taking no account for whether species are improving or declining. The tiered approach, by contrast, makes progress a core structural feature of the rule. It sets demographic objectives for each area and provides enhanced regulatory flexibility for meeting them. This approach provides stronger incentives for progress, allows for a more gradual transition to state management, ties flexibility to areas of abundance, and allows states to build trust in their management prior to delisting. The tiered approach also respects the expertise and role of state wildlife agencies. While the proposed rule refers to states as in "a unique position to assist" in implementing the Endangered Species Act, the reality is that states have been leaders in carrying out grizzly conservation. Under the tiered approach, state agencies will be able to act on their own expertise in areas that have met benchmarks.
They are also provided a path to state management as other areas achieve goals. The proposed rule additionally lowers the stakes of future delisting decisions by breaking the rigid connection between delisting and state management. A tiered approach acts as a sort of insurance policy against future delisting litigation, by locking in a degree of flexibility and state management that would not be disturbed if a future delisting is overturned. And it would allow that delisting decision to be informed by real-world evidence about "existing regulatory mechanisms" rather than speculation. So we commend the Service for embracing this innovative tiered approach. And we offer these additional thoughts to further strengthen the proposed rule to improve clarity and avoid future conflict: 1)
Incorporate goals and flexibility into the rule itself, rather than relying on an uncertain and discretionary MOU process Under the proposed rule, demographic objectives and the transfer of management authority to states is deferred to a subsequent conservation strategy and MOU rather than resolved in the rule. That reliance on a new, uncertain, and apparently discretionary agency process is not necessary because local area objectives already exist in the recovery plan. An uncertain replacement also needlessly raises concerns from both supporters and critics of the general concept of the tiered approach. States and conservation groups like ours have expressed concern that the Service may fail to fully honor the promises of this 3
Id. A copy of this comment has been included as an attachment.
rule by setting unreasonable demographic objectives or withholding flexibility even if they are met.4 Some other environmental groups have expressed the opposite concern, fearing that objectives will be set unreasonably low or will not be enforced.5 Since this aspect of the proposed rule maximizes the Fish and Wildlife Service's ongoing discretion, rather than providing clear, enforceable standards, both concerns are plausible. We recommend the Service provide the demographic objectives in the rule itself and make the additional flexibility triggered by them automatically. This would avoid imposing additional, needless paperwork burdens on state wildlife agencies. And the Service has taken this approach before, in the only other 4(d) rule that adopts something like this tiered model.
The 4(d) rule for the Mexican wolf uses the size of the breeding age population as a trigger for additional state flexibility to manage wolves to address impacts to native ungulates, among other flexibilities.6 Because the Service has already developed a recovery plan for the grizzly bear and has decades of information about population growth and habitat, it is a good candidate to include clear, objective criteria in the rule itself to be used as the trigger for increased flexibility-and to provide (or withdraw) that flexibility-rather than relying on a separate, discretionary MOU process. This would provide clarity to everyone about expectations and how the rule would work. Incorporating these details into the regulation rather than relying on a later MOU would also reduce litigation risk.
Under the proposed rule, the future conservation strategies and MOUs are potentially vulnerable to litigation. Because they change the operation of the proposed 4(d) rule, opponents of flexibility may argue that the MOUs are themselves rules that must be formally adopted through notice and comment procedures. Incorporating everything into the rule itself, on the other hand, eliminates this concern and needs only to satisfy Section 4(d)'s flexible "necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species" standard. The use of explicit biological triggers for increased flexibility has been specifically upheld under that standard.7
2)
Clarify the scope of the Tier 2 exception for incidental take for landowners The previous proposal contained several explicit exemptions for ranchers and other private landowners. The current proposal replaces them with an incidental take exemption for areas in Tier 2 status. However, the proposed rule contains a new definition of incidental take that is inconsistent 7
See Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, 22-cv-00303, 2025 WL 981686 (D. Ariz. 2025) 6 50 C.F.R. Sec. 17.84(k). 5 The proposed rule provides that the Service "may" revoke Tier 2 status if the objectives are not met but does not require the status to be revoked and federal regulation restored in any circumstances. 4 As written, the proposed rule makes an area meeting the demographic objectives a necessary condition of Tier 2 status, but not necessarily a sufficient condition. States must demonstrate objectives are met to qualify for Tier 2.
But the rule doesn't require the Service to grant a state Tier 2 status whenever the objectives are met. with the established understanding of this phrase, narrows the effect of this exemption substantially, and creates unnecessary confusion.8 No explanation is offered for this narrowing of "incidental take." We encourage you to use the ordinary definition of incidental take for this rule or provide greater clarity about how this bespoke definition affects Tier 2 status. If the new definition is retained, the Service should offer some justification for it. It should also provide a nonexhaustive list of circumstances in which state and landowner activity will be covered by the incidental take exemption under Tier 2. And it should identify actions that would be incidental take under the ordinary definition but would be excluded under this proposed definition. Providing this clarity now will avoid future confusion and conflict later, benefiting states, landowners, and bears. Conclusion Thank you again for your leadership in conservation and embrace of this innovative tiered 4(d) rule approach. We applaud the proposal and offer these suggestions to improve clarity, reduce conflict, and streamline administration of the rule. We look forward to the final rule's release and the conservation it unleashes.8
Compare 50 C.F.R. Sec. 17.3 (defining "incidental take" generally as take "incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity") with 91 Fed. Reg. 44,780, 44,794 (adding to the general definition that take must also be "unintentional and not due to negligent conduct" and further excluding take that results from misidentification of a species during a lawful activity).
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FWS-R6-ES-2024-0186-106462
Comment on the Proposed Revisions to the Protective Regulations for Grizzly Bears, RIN 1018-BI14 Property and Environment Research Center, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club, and Wyoming Wildlife Federation August 17, 2026 Dir. Nesvik,
The Property and Environment Research Center, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club, and Wyoming Wildlife Federation applaud the Fish and Wildlife Service ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. Comment on the Proposed Revisions to the Protective Regulations for Grizzly Bears, RIN 1018-BI14 Property and Environment Research Center, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club, and Wyoming Wildlife Federation August 17, 2026 Dir. Nesvik, The Property and Environment Research Center, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club, and Wyoming Wildlife Federation applaud the Fish and Wildlife Servicefor its proposal to separate the revision to the grizzly bear listing from the revision of the 4(d) rule-and to embrace an innovative tiered approach to the 4(d) rule that encourages and extends recovery progress.1
This new approach is a fitting next step for one of the Endangered Species Act's signature conservation success stories: Increasing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population from a mere 136 bears in 1975 to more than 1,055 bears today. Abandoning the previously proposed "distinct population segment" (DPS) ensures the 4(d) revision can carry that progress forward to eventual de-listing.
The controversial DPS proposal-based on a strained interpretation of "distinct population segment" that disregards connectivity between bears in the lower 48 and Canada while penalizing connectivity between populations in the lower 48-contradicts Congressional intent on when this provision should be applied. It should be discarded. The Service has never adequately explained the ecological significance of international boundaries nor why the significance of the southern portion of the grizzly's range in North America requires anything more than the successful recovery program we have. The 1996 policy on which the needless DPS proposal was based needs reform, but that reconsideration should not delay a much needed revision to the 4(d) rule.2
See Prop. & Envt. Res. Center et al., Comment on the Proposed Grizzly Bear Listing with a Revised 4(d) Rule (May 16, 2025).1 Fish & Wildlife Serv., Proposed Revision of the Grizzly Bear Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d), 91 Fed. Reg. 44,780 (July 17, 2026).
We are especially pleased that the Service has proposed a "tiered" approach to authorizing state management because this adapts recovery policy to the new issues raised by the returning abundance of bears. Addressing those issues will improve social tolerance of bears and increase support for continued conservation progress-and it will also facilitate the eventual transition to full state management upon eventual delisting. We proposed such a tiered approach for these reasons in our comment on the Service's 2025 proposal.3 Rather than repeat everything we said in that comment, we incorporate it by reference and summarize its main points below. This is a truly innovative approach that promises to improve conservation not only of grizzly bears but many other species.
To date, 4(d) rules have been written statically, taking no account for whether species are improving or declining. The tiered approach, by contrast, makes progress a core structural feature of the rule. It sets demographic objectives for each area and provides enhanced regulatory flexibility for meeting them. This approach provides stronger incentives for progress, allows for a more gradual transition to state management, ties flexibility to areas of abundance, and allows states to build trust in their management prior to delisting. The tiered approach also respects the expertise and role of state wildlife agencies. While the proposed rule refers to states as in "a unique position to assist" in implementing the Endangered Species Act, the reality is that states have been leaders in carrying out grizzly conservation. Under the tiered approach, state agencies will be able to act on their own expertise in areas that have met benchmarks.
They are also provided a path to state management as other areas achieve goals. The proposed rule additionally lowers the stakes of future delisting decisions by breaking the rigid connection between delisting and state management. A tiered approach acts as a sort of insurance policy against future delisting litigation, by locking in a degree of flexibility and state management that would not be disturbed if a future delisting is overturned. And it would allow that delisting decision to be informed by real-world evidence about "existing regulatory mechanisms" rather than speculation. So we commend the Service for embracing this innovative tiered approach. And we offer these additional thoughts to further strengthen the proposed rule to improve clarity and avoid future conflict: 1)
Incorporate goals and flexibility into the rule itself, rather than relying on an uncertain and discretionary MOU process Under the proposed rule, demographic objectives and the transfer of management authority to states is deferred to a subsequent conservation strategy and MOU rather than resolved in the rule. That reliance on a new, uncertain, and apparently discretionary agency process is not necessary because local area objectives already exist in the recovery plan. An uncertain replacement also needlessly raises concerns from both supporters and critics of the general concept of the tiered approach. States and conservation groups like ours have expressed concern that the Service may fail to fully honor the promises of this 3
Id. A copy of this comment has been included as an attachment.
rule by setting unreasonable demographic objectives or withholding flexibility even if they are met.4 Some other environmental groups have expressed the opposite concern, fearing that objectives will be set unreasonably low or will not be enforced.5 Since this aspect of the proposed rule maximizes the Fish and Wildlife Service's ongoing discretion, rather than providing clear, enforceable standards, both concerns are plausible. We recommend the Service provide the demographic objectives in the rule itself and make the additional flexibility triggered by them automatically. This would avoid imposing additional, needless paperwork burdens on state wildlife agencies. And the Service has taken this approach before, in the only other 4(d) rule that adopts something like this tiered model.
The 4(d) rule for the Mexican wolf uses the size of the breeding age population as a trigger for additional state flexibility to manage wolves to address impacts to native ungulates, among other flexibilities.6 Because the Service has already developed a recovery plan for the grizzly bear and has decades of information about population growth and habitat, it is a good candidate to include clear, objective criteria in the rule itself to be used as the trigger for increased flexibility-and to provide (or withdraw) that flexibility-rather than relying on a separate, discretionary MOU process. This would provide clarity to everyone about expectations and how the rule would work. Incorporating these details into the regulation rather than relying on a later MOU would also reduce litigation risk.
Under the proposed rule, the future conservation strategies and MOUs are potentially vulnerable to litigation. Because they change the operation of the proposed 4(d) rule, opponents of flexibility may argue that the MOUs are themselves rules that must be formally adopted through notice and comment procedures. Incorporating everything into the rule itself, on the other hand, eliminates this concern and needs only to satisfy Section 4(d)'s flexible "necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species" standard. The use of explicit biological triggers for increased flexibility has been specifically upheld under that standard.7
2)
Clarify the scope of the Tier 2 exception for incidental take for landowners The previous proposal contained several explicit exemptions for ranchers and other private landowners. The current proposal replaces them with an incidental take exemption for areas in Tier 2 status. However, the proposed rule contains a new definition of incidental take that is inconsistent 7
See Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, 22-cv-00303, 2025 WL 981686 (D. Ariz. 2025) 6 50 C.F.R. Sec. 17.84(k). 5 The proposed rule provides that the Service "may" revoke Tier 2 status if the objectives are not met but does not require the status to be revoked and federal regulation restored in any circumstances. 4 As written, the proposed rule makes an area meeting the demographic objectives a necessary condition of Tier 2 status, but not necessarily a sufficient condition. States must demonstrate objectives are met to qualify for Tier 2.
But the rule doesn't require the Service to grant a state Tier 2 status whenever the objectives are met. with the established understanding of this phrase, narrows the effect of this exemption substantially, and creates unnecessary confusion.8 No explanation is offered for this narrowing of "incidental take." We encourage you to use the ordinary definition of incidental take for this rule or provide greater clarity about how this bespoke definition affects Tier 2 status. If the new definition is retained, the Service should offer some justification for it. It should also provide a nonexhaustive list of circumstances in which state and landowner activity will be covered by the incidental take exemption under Tier 2. And it should identify actions that would be incidental take under the ordinary definition but would be excluded under this proposed definition. Providing this clarity now will avoid future confusion and conflict later, benefiting states, landowners, and bears. Conclusion Thank you again for your leadership in conservation and embrace of this innovative tiered 4(d) rule approach. We applaud the proposal and offer these suggestions to improve clarity, reduce conflict, and streamline administration of the rule. We look forward to the final rule's release and the conservation it unleashes.8
Compare 50 C.F.R. Sec. 17.3 (defining "incidental take" generally as take "incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity") with 91 Fed. Reg. 44,780, 44,794 (adding to the general definition that take must also be "unintentional and not due to negligent conduct" and further excluding take that results from misidentification of a species during a lawful activity).
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FWS-R6-ES-2024-0186-106462
2GenPen LLC Supports Modernization of CAMELS Framework With AI and Data Analytics
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
2GenPen LLC | FFIEC Docket ID OCC-2026-0562
COMMENT OF 2GENPEN LLC
Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (CAMELS)
FFIEC | Docket ID OCC-2026-0562 | August 17, 2026
Submitted by
2GenPen LLC
Re
Proposed Revisions to the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (CAMELS)
Federal Register
91 Fed. Reg. 29128 (May 19, 2026)
2GenPen LLC respectfully submits these comments in strong support of the FFIEC's proposed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. 2GenPen LLC | FFIEC Docket ID OCC-2026-0562 COMMENT OF 2GENPEN LLC Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (CAMELS) FFIEC | Docket ID OCC-2026-0562 | August 17, 2026 Submitted by 2GenPen LLC Re Proposed Revisions to the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (CAMELS) Federal Register 91 Fed. Reg. 29128 (May 19, 2026) 2GenPen LLC respectfully submits these comments in strong support of the FFIEC's proposedmodernization of the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System. The proposal's central objective-strengthening the link between supervisory ratings and safety and soundness by focusing on material financial risks, while improving transparency and predictability-is both timely and important.
The proposed revisions also arrive at a consequential technological moment. The availability of large financial datasets, inexpensive computation, and increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence and machine-learning tools now makes it possible to evaluate financial risk more continuously, consistently, and empirically than when the CAMELS framework was last comprehensively revised. The final framework should preserve room for supervisory practice to benefit from these capabilities as they are independently validated and responsibly governed.
1. The proposed focus on material financial risk should be retained and strengthened.
2GenPen agrees with the FFIEC's decision to reduce reliance on process-oriented deficiencies that do not materially affect an institution's financial condition and to focus component and composite ratings on risks that can impair capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, or sensitivity to market conditions. This approach should improve the informational content of CAMELS ratings and reduce the risk that immaterial procedural concerns obscure more consequential financial vulnerabilities.
In response to Questions 1 and 2, we recommend that the final framework state as clearly as practicable that supervisory ratings should be anchored to observable financial consequences and credible pathways through which identified risks could impair an institution's ability to remain safe and sound. Where judgment is required, the framework should encourage examiners to distinguish between the existence of a weakness and the magnitude, transmission mechanism, and financial materiality of that weakness.
2. "Evolving business practices" should expressly include validated AI/ML-based risk intelligence.
Question 3 appropriately asks how the agencies should consider evolving business practices. We believe the answer should include the rapidly expanding use of explainable artificial intelligence, machine learning, high-dimensional data analysis, scenario testing, and continuous risk monitoring. These technologies can supplement-not replace-examiner judgment by identifying relationships among financial, structural, legal, market, and behavioral variables that may be difficult to observe through static ratios or categorical assessments alone.
The final framework need not endorse any particular vendor, model, or technology. It should instead remain technology-neutral while recognizing that independently validated quantitative tools may provide useful evidence regarding material financial risk. A model should earn supervisory relevance through empirical performance, transparency, reproducibility, data provenance, sensitivity analysis, bias testing, model-risk governance, and clear disclosure of limitations.
2GenPen LLC | FFIEC Docket ID OCC-2026-0562
3. The FFIEC should encourage independent, explainable analytical layers rather than new black boxes.
The modernization objective will be best served if increased quantification does not simply substitute one opaque judgment for another. Modern analytical systems can preserve the factors underlying a conclusion, express risk on continuous rather than solely categorical scales, and show how an institution's risk state changes as assumptions and economic conditions change. That capability is particularly relevant where different portfolios, asset classes, or business models can appear similar under broad supervisory categories while possessing materially different pathways to impairment.
2GenPen has developed patented AI/ML-based credit-intelligence technologies that are designed around this principle: heterogeneous quantitative and qualitative information can be organized into a common, explainable analytical architecture and tested against empirical outcomes. We do not ask the FFIEC in this proceeding to adopt or recognize any proprietary model. We cite our work only to demonstrate that the technological capability contemplated above is no longer theoretical and that the final CAMELS framework should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate validated advances in risk measurement.
4. Recommended addition to the final framework.
We respectfully recommend that the FFIEC incorporate language, either in the final UFIRS text or accompanying supervisory guidance, substantially reflecting the following principle:
In evaluating material financial risk, examiners may consider relevant, independently validated quantitative and technology-enabled analytical tools where such tools are empirically grounded, explainable, reproducible, appropriately governed, and suitable to the institution's size, complexity, activities, and risk profile.
We further encourage the agencies, following adoption of the revised framework, to consider controlled supervisory pilots or technical consultations through which emerging analytical methods can be evaluated against historical and prospective outcomes. Such a process would allow innovation to inform supervision without lowering validation standards or compromising examiner independence.
Conclusion
The proposed revisions appropriately move CAMELS toward a more transparent, measurable, and financially consequential assessment of safety and soundness. The opportunity is not merely to modernize the wording of a framework created in an earlier era, but to ensure that the framework remains capable of incorporating better evidence as the tools available to identify, measure, monitor, and control material financial risk continue to evolve.
2GenPen respectfully supports the direction of the proposal and encourages the FFIEC to preserve a clear pathway for independently validated, explainable AI/ML-based risk intelligence to supplement supervisory judgment and advance the shared objective of more informed, consistent, and risk-sensitive supervision.
Respectfully submitted,
Laurence H. Wadler
Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer
2GenPen LLC
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/OCC-2026-0562-0063
2GenPen LLC | FFIEC Docket ID OCC-2026-0562
COMMENT OF 2GENPEN LLC
Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (CAMELS)
FFIEC | Docket ID OCC-2026-0562 | August 17, 2026
Submitted by
2GenPen LLC
Re
Proposed Revisions to the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (CAMELS)
Federal Register
91 Fed. Reg. 29128 (May 19, 2026)
2GenPen LLC respectfully submits these comments in strong support of the FFIEC's proposed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. 2GenPen LLC | FFIEC Docket ID OCC-2026-0562 COMMENT OF 2GENPEN LLC Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (CAMELS) FFIEC | Docket ID OCC-2026-0562 | August 17, 2026 Submitted by 2GenPen LLC Re Proposed Revisions to the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (CAMELS) Federal Register 91 Fed. Reg. 29128 (May 19, 2026) 2GenPen LLC respectfully submits these comments in strong support of the FFIEC's proposedmodernization of the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System. The proposal's central objective-strengthening the link between supervisory ratings and safety and soundness by focusing on material financial risks, while improving transparency and predictability-is both timely and important.
The proposed revisions also arrive at a consequential technological moment. The availability of large financial datasets, inexpensive computation, and increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence and machine-learning tools now makes it possible to evaluate financial risk more continuously, consistently, and empirically than when the CAMELS framework was last comprehensively revised. The final framework should preserve room for supervisory practice to benefit from these capabilities as they are independently validated and responsibly governed.
1. The proposed focus on material financial risk should be retained and strengthened.
2GenPen agrees with the FFIEC's decision to reduce reliance on process-oriented deficiencies that do not materially affect an institution's financial condition and to focus component and composite ratings on risks that can impair capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, or sensitivity to market conditions. This approach should improve the informational content of CAMELS ratings and reduce the risk that immaterial procedural concerns obscure more consequential financial vulnerabilities.
In response to Questions 1 and 2, we recommend that the final framework state as clearly as practicable that supervisory ratings should be anchored to observable financial consequences and credible pathways through which identified risks could impair an institution's ability to remain safe and sound. Where judgment is required, the framework should encourage examiners to distinguish between the existence of a weakness and the magnitude, transmission mechanism, and financial materiality of that weakness.
2. "Evolving business practices" should expressly include validated AI/ML-based risk intelligence.
Question 3 appropriately asks how the agencies should consider evolving business practices. We believe the answer should include the rapidly expanding use of explainable artificial intelligence, machine learning, high-dimensional data analysis, scenario testing, and continuous risk monitoring. These technologies can supplement-not replace-examiner judgment by identifying relationships among financial, structural, legal, market, and behavioral variables that may be difficult to observe through static ratios or categorical assessments alone.
The final framework need not endorse any particular vendor, model, or technology. It should instead remain technology-neutral while recognizing that independently validated quantitative tools may provide useful evidence regarding material financial risk. A model should earn supervisory relevance through empirical performance, transparency, reproducibility, data provenance, sensitivity analysis, bias testing, model-risk governance, and clear disclosure of limitations.
2GenPen LLC | FFIEC Docket ID OCC-2026-0562
3. The FFIEC should encourage independent, explainable analytical layers rather than new black boxes.
The modernization objective will be best served if increased quantification does not simply substitute one opaque judgment for another. Modern analytical systems can preserve the factors underlying a conclusion, express risk on continuous rather than solely categorical scales, and show how an institution's risk state changes as assumptions and economic conditions change. That capability is particularly relevant where different portfolios, asset classes, or business models can appear similar under broad supervisory categories while possessing materially different pathways to impairment.
2GenPen has developed patented AI/ML-based credit-intelligence technologies that are designed around this principle: heterogeneous quantitative and qualitative information can be organized into a common, explainable analytical architecture and tested against empirical outcomes. We do not ask the FFIEC in this proceeding to adopt or recognize any proprietary model. We cite our work only to demonstrate that the technological capability contemplated above is no longer theoretical and that the final CAMELS framework should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate validated advances in risk measurement.
4. Recommended addition to the final framework.
We respectfully recommend that the FFIEC incorporate language, either in the final UFIRS text or accompanying supervisory guidance, substantially reflecting the following principle:
In evaluating material financial risk, examiners may consider relevant, independently validated quantitative and technology-enabled analytical tools where such tools are empirically grounded, explainable, reproducible, appropriately governed, and suitable to the institution's size, complexity, activities, and risk profile.
We further encourage the agencies, following adoption of the revised framework, to consider controlled supervisory pilots or technical consultations through which emerging analytical methods can be evaluated against historical and prospective outcomes. Such a process would allow innovation to inform supervision without lowering validation standards or compromising examiner independence.
Conclusion
The proposed revisions appropriately move CAMELS toward a more transparent, measurable, and financially consequential assessment of safety and soundness. The opportunity is not merely to modernize the wording of a framework created in an earlier era, but to ensure that the framework remains capable of incorporating better evidence as the tools available to identify, measure, monitor, and control material financial risk continue to evolve.
2GenPen respectfully supports the direction of the proposal and encourages the FFIEC to preserve a clear pathway for independently validated, explainable AI/ML-based risk intelligence to supplement supervisory judgment and advance the shared objective of more informed, consistent, and risk-sensitive supervision.
Respectfully submitted,
Laurence H. Wadler
Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer
2GenPen LLC
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/OCC-2026-0562-0063
11 U.S. Congress Members Urge NMFS Approval of Expanded Recreational Red Snapper Fishing Pilot Programs
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
August 17, 2026
Mr. Andy Strelcheck
Southeast Regional Office
National Marine Fisheries Service
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
Re: Exempted Fishing Permit Applications in the South Atlantic
Position: Support
Dear Mr. Strelcheck,
As leaders of the state legislative sportsmen's caucuses in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, we write to express our strong support for the new Exempted Fishing Permit ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. August 17, 2026 Mr. Andy Strelcheck Southeast Regional Office National Marine Fisheries Service 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701. Re: Exempted Fishing Permit Applications in the South Atlantic Position: Support Dear Mr. Strelcheck, As leaders of the state legislative sportsmen's caucuses in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, we write to express our strong support for the new Exempted Fishing Permit(EFP) applications submitted by our respective state fish and wildlife agencies concerning the recreational red snapper fishery in the South Atlantic. We appreciate the National Marine Fisheries Service's continued consideration of innovative, state-driven approaches that can improve recreational fisheries data collection, strengthen conservation, and provide anglers with meaningful fishing opportunities. The EFP applications submitted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and South Carolina Department of Natural Resources represent a constructive partnership between state and federal fishery managers. The proposals would allow our states to pilot extended recreational red snapper fishing opportunities while implementing enhanced state-based data collection and reporting programs. Florida would build upon its State Reef Fish Survey while testing voluntary electronic reporting, while Georgia and South Carolina would utilize mandatory electronic reporting to collect timely, trip-level information on fishing effort, harvest, and releases. Importantly, these proposals are designed to test management approaches that can produce better information for future management decisions. By coupling expanded access with more comprehensive and timely reporting, the EFPs provide an opportunity to evaluate whether state-based data collection can reduce uncertainty in recreational catch and effort estimates and provide managers with more reliable information than is currently available.
The proposed EFPs also provide an opportunity to demonstrate how cooperative federalism can improve both conservation and access. The states would operate within specified harvest limits and monitoring requirements, with provisions to close the fishery when those limits are projected to be reached. This approach recognizes that sustainable fisheries management and increased recreational fishing opportunity are not mutually exclusive when management decisions are supported by credible, timely data. As demonstrated by the progress made through enhanced state-level data collection in the Gulf, giving states a greater role in collecting and applying fishery data can reduce uncertainty while strengthening confidence in management decisions affecting anglers and coastal communities. The proposed EFPs represent a responsible opportunity to supplement existing federal data systems with state-based approaches that can be tested, evaluated, and improved. Recreational fishing is a cornerstone of our coastal economies and outdoor heritage. We believe these EFPs provide an important opportunity to test innovative management strategies grounded in sound science, accountability, and cooperative federalism. We respectfully encourage NMFS to approve the Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina EFP applications and allow these states to demonstrate how improved recreational data can lead to better fisheries management and greater confidence in the decisions that affect our anglers and coastal communities. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued work to ensure sustainable fisheries and meaningful recreational fishing opportunities for current and future generations.
Sincerely,
Senator Jim Boyd
Florida Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Senator Jason Brodeur
Florida Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Representative Danny Alvarez
Florida Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Senator Lee Anderson
Georgia Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Senator Sheikh Rahman
Georgia Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Representative Chas Cannon
Georgia Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses Executive Council Member
Representative Matt Dubnik
Georgia Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Senator Stephen Goldfinch
South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Senator Russell Ott
South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses Executive Council Member
Representative Heather Bauer
South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Representative Gary Brewer
South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NOAA-NMFS-2026-2245-3578
August 17, 2026
Mr. Andy Strelcheck
Southeast Regional Office
National Marine Fisheries Service
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
Re: Exempted Fishing Permit Applications in the South Atlantic
Position: Support
Dear Mr. Strelcheck,
As leaders of the state legislative sportsmen's caucuses in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, we write to express our strong support for the new Exempted Fishing Permit ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. August 17, 2026 Mr. Andy Strelcheck Southeast Regional Office National Marine Fisheries Service 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701. Re: Exempted Fishing Permit Applications in the South Atlantic Position: Support Dear Mr. Strelcheck, As leaders of the state legislative sportsmen's caucuses in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, we write to express our strong support for the new Exempted Fishing Permit(EFP) applications submitted by our respective state fish and wildlife agencies concerning the recreational red snapper fishery in the South Atlantic. We appreciate the National Marine Fisheries Service's continued consideration of innovative, state-driven approaches that can improve recreational fisheries data collection, strengthen conservation, and provide anglers with meaningful fishing opportunities. The EFP applications submitted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and South Carolina Department of Natural Resources represent a constructive partnership between state and federal fishery managers. The proposals would allow our states to pilot extended recreational red snapper fishing opportunities while implementing enhanced state-based data collection and reporting programs. Florida would build upon its State Reef Fish Survey while testing voluntary electronic reporting, while Georgia and South Carolina would utilize mandatory electronic reporting to collect timely, trip-level information on fishing effort, harvest, and releases. Importantly, these proposals are designed to test management approaches that can produce better information for future management decisions. By coupling expanded access with more comprehensive and timely reporting, the EFPs provide an opportunity to evaluate whether state-based data collection can reduce uncertainty in recreational catch and effort estimates and provide managers with more reliable information than is currently available.
The proposed EFPs also provide an opportunity to demonstrate how cooperative federalism can improve both conservation and access. The states would operate within specified harvest limits and monitoring requirements, with provisions to close the fishery when those limits are projected to be reached. This approach recognizes that sustainable fisheries management and increased recreational fishing opportunity are not mutually exclusive when management decisions are supported by credible, timely data. As demonstrated by the progress made through enhanced state-level data collection in the Gulf, giving states a greater role in collecting and applying fishery data can reduce uncertainty while strengthening confidence in management decisions affecting anglers and coastal communities. The proposed EFPs represent a responsible opportunity to supplement existing federal data systems with state-based approaches that can be tested, evaluated, and improved. Recreational fishing is a cornerstone of our coastal economies and outdoor heritage. We believe these EFPs provide an important opportunity to test innovative management strategies grounded in sound science, accountability, and cooperative federalism. We respectfully encourage NMFS to approve the Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina EFP applications and allow these states to demonstrate how improved recreational data can lead to better fisheries management and greater confidence in the decisions that affect our anglers and coastal communities. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued work to ensure sustainable fisheries and meaningful recreational fishing opportunities for current and future generations.
Sincerely,
Senator Jim Boyd
Florida Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Senator Jason Brodeur
Florida Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Representative Danny Alvarez
Florida Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Senator Lee Anderson
Georgia Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Senator Sheikh Rahman
Georgia Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Representative Chas Cannon
Georgia Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses Executive Council Member
Representative Matt Dubnik
Georgia Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Senator Stephen Goldfinch
South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Senator Russell Ott
South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses Executive Council Member
Representative Heather Bauer
South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
Representative Gary Brewer
South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chair
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NOAA-NMFS-2026-2245-3578