Public Comments on Proposed Federal Rules
Here's a look at public comments on proposed Federal Register rules
More Recent Headlines
Featured Stories
National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association Urges DOT to Deny Petition for Changes to 49 CFR Part 40 Medical Documentation and Observed Recollection Procedures
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association
1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington D. C. 20006
(888) 31-NDASA
www.ndasa.com
"The voice of the drug and alcohol testing industry"
October 30th, 2026
Docket No.: DOT-OST-2026-3664
Mr. Douglas Simon
Director, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington D. C. 20006 (888) 31-NDASA www.ndasa.com "The voice of the drug and alcohol testing industry" October 30th, 2026 Docket No.: DOT-OST-2026-3664 Mr. Douglas Simon Director, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, D.C.20590
Re: Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs; Notification of Petition for Rulemaking; Request for Comments (Darcy Kern Petition to Amend 49 CFR Part 40)
Dear Director Simon,
The National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA) respectfully submits these comments in regard to the petition for rulemaking received by the Department on February 27th, 2026, and noticed in the Federal Register on October 1st, 2026 (FR Doc. 2026-20169). The petition asks the Department to amend 49 CFR part 40, principally Sec.40.193 and related provisions, to add a 72-hour medical documentation window, written MRO determinations and specialist consultations before a directly observed recollection or a refusal determination may proceed. NDASA represents the professionals who carry out the Department's testing program every day: employers, consortia/third-party administrators (C/TPAs), collectors, breath alcohol technicians (BATs), screening test technicians (STTs), laboratories, medical review officers (MROs), substance abuse professionals (SAPs) and program administrators, serving employers nationwide under the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 and part 40. Our members are the collectors who conduct shy bladder procedures and the MROs who conduct verification interviews. We see these situations firsthand. NDASA appreciates the petitioner's concern for employees with genuine medical conditions. We share it. Fairness to the individual employee and the integrity of the test are not competing goals. Part 40 was built to protect both. However, after careful review, NDASA respectfully urges the Department to deny the petition, for the reasons below. 1. Part 40 Already Provides the Medical Review the Petition Requests
The petition states that the regulation does not require a structured medical verification step when an employee asserts a plausible medical explanation. We respectfully disagree. For invalid results, Sec.40.159(a)(3) requires the MRO to ask the employee whether there is a medical explanation, and National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington D. C. 20006 (888) 31-NDASA www.ndasa.com
"The voice of the drug and alcohol testing industry"
Sec.40.159(a)(4) directs the MRO to cancel the test with no observed collection required when that explanation is acceptable. Section 40.159(a)(6) already addresses pH between 9.0 and 9.5 by requiring the MRO to consider time and temperature. Section 40.160 addresses permanent or long-term conditions that prevent a valid specimen. For insufficient specimens, Sec.40.193(c) already requires an evaluation within five days (business days, per ODAPC guidance) by a licensed physician, acceptable to the MRO, who has expertise in the medical issues raised. Section 40.193(e) expressly recognizes a "medically documented pre-existing psychological disorder" as a qualifying medical condition, while excluding unsupported assertions of "situational anxiety." In other words, an employee with documented paruresis already has a defined path to have that condition evaluated by a qualified physician before any refusal is verified. The petition would add a second layer of process on top of one that already exists. MROs are licensed physicians with specialized training and qualification under Sec.40.121, and evaluating medical explanations is the core of what they do. MROs who follow the procedures in part 40 are already fully equipped to handle these conditions. No additional regulatory changes are required. 2. A 72-Hour Window Undermines the Purpose of an Immediate Observed Recollection
When an invalid result is not medically explained, Sec.40.159(a)(5) requires that the recollection occur immediately, under direct observation, with the minimum possible advance notice to the employee. That immediacy is the safeguard. An invalid result can signal adulteration with a product the laboratory cannot identify, and the observed recollection is the Department's answer to it. The petition would allow up to 72 hours to pass, with the employee fully aware a recollection is coming, before the observed collection may proceed. That is time for drug use to fall below cutoffs and time to plan the next attempt. The petitioner describes the window as finite. We agree it is finite, but it is long enough to defeat the purpose of the recollection. Meanwhile, nothing in the petition removes the employee from safety-sensitive duty while the window runs. The traveling public deserves better than that gap. 3. The Proposal Adds Cost, Delay and Inconsistency Without Added Accuracy
Requiring written MRO determinations on every submitted document, and consultation with a urologist or mental health professional, would add cost and delay for employers, particularly the small owner-operators and small carriers who make up much of the regulated community. It would also invite disputes over whether documentation was "sufficient" and whether a consultation was adequately "considered." The Sec.40.193 referral physician must already have expertise in the medical issue raised, so a further specialist consultation is largely duplicative. The petition suggests that, without new standards, MRO determinations may be inconsistent. When an MRO follows the procedures part 40 already requires, the employee's medical explanation is heard and evaluated. Where an individual service agent fails to follow those procedures, the Department already has remedies, including Public Interest Exclusion proceedings under Subpart R. The answer is to enforce the existing rule, not to add new steps for every employee and employer.
National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington D. C. 20006 (888) 31-NDASA www.ndasa.com
"The voice of the drug and alcohol testing industry"
4. The Alternate Specimen Is the Better Answer
The Department has already provided a practical solution. Since May 2023 the final rule authorizing oral fluid testing, Sec.40.193 permits a collector to proceed with an alternate specimen, and Sec.40.159(a)(5) directs the MRO to recommend an alternate specimen, such as oral fluid when the original was urine, where practicable. For an employee with a genuine voiding disorder or a recurring urinary chemistry issue, an observed oral fluid collection removes the problem entirely, without delay and without weakening the test. NDASA respectfully suggests that the Department's energy is best spent expanding the availability of oral fluid testing across DOT programs, rather than adding new steps to the urine process. Conclusion
NDASA supports a testing program that is fair to every employee and that the public can trust. MROs who follow the procedures in part 40 are already equipped to handle the conditions the petition describes, and the alternate specimen offers a direct remedy. The proposed changes would delay observed recollections, add burden and create new grounds for dispute, all without improving accuracy. For these reasons, NDASA respectfully urges the Department to deny the petition. We remain committed to supporting the Department's efforts and stand ready to collaborate with ODAPC on the continued rollout of oral fluid testing and any other matters that strengthen the program. Thank you for the important work that each of you do every day in the interest of public safety.
Respectfully Submitted,
M. Jo McGuire, BS, CSAPA
Executive Director
National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA)
1629 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20006 (888) 31-NDASA | info@ndasa.com | ndasa.com
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2026-3664-0054
National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association
1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington D. C. 20006
(888) 31-NDASA
www.ndasa.com
"The voice of the drug and alcohol testing industry"
October 30th, 2026
Docket No.: DOT-OST-2026-3664
Mr. Douglas Simon
Director, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington D. C. 20006 (888) 31-NDASA www.ndasa.com "The voice of the drug and alcohol testing industry" October 30th, 2026 Docket No.: DOT-OST-2026-3664 Mr. Douglas Simon Director, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, D.C.20590
Re: Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs; Notification of Petition for Rulemaking; Request for Comments (Darcy Kern Petition to Amend 49 CFR Part 40)
Dear Director Simon,
The National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA) respectfully submits these comments in regard to the petition for rulemaking received by the Department on February 27th, 2026, and noticed in the Federal Register on October 1st, 2026 (FR Doc. 2026-20169). The petition asks the Department to amend 49 CFR part 40, principally Sec.40.193 and related provisions, to add a 72-hour medical documentation window, written MRO determinations and specialist consultations before a directly observed recollection or a refusal determination may proceed. NDASA represents the professionals who carry out the Department's testing program every day: employers, consortia/third-party administrators (C/TPAs), collectors, breath alcohol technicians (BATs), screening test technicians (STTs), laboratories, medical review officers (MROs), substance abuse professionals (SAPs) and program administrators, serving employers nationwide under the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 and part 40. Our members are the collectors who conduct shy bladder procedures and the MROs who conduct verification interviews. We see these situations firsthand. NDASA appreciates the petitioner's concern for employees with genuine medical conditions. We share it. Fairness to the individual employee and the integrity of the test are not competing goals. Part 40 was built to protect both. However, after careful review, NDASA respectfully urges the Department to deny the petition, for the reasons below. 1. Part 40 Already Provides the Medical Review the Petition Requests
The petition states that the regulation does not require a structured medical verification step when an employee asserts a plausible medical explanation. We respectfully disagree. For invalid results, Sec.40.159(a)(3) requires the MRO to ask the employee whether there is a medical explanation, and National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington D. C. 20006 (888) 31-NDASA www.ndasa.com
"The voice of the drug and alcohol testing industry"
Sec.40.159(a)(4) directs the MRO to cancel the test with no observed collection required when that explanation is acceptable. Section 40.159(a)(6) already addresses pH between 9.0 and 9.5 by requiring the MRO to consider time and temperature. Section 40.160 addresses permanent or long-term conditions that prevent a valid specimen. For insufficient specimens, Sec.40.193(c) already requires an evaluation within five days (business days, per ODAPC guidance) by a licensed physician, acceptable to the MRO, who has expertise in the medical issues raised. Section 40.193(e) expressly recognizes a "medically documented pre-existing psychological disorder" as a qualifying medical condition, while excluding unsupported assertions of "situational anxiety." In other words, an employee with documented paruresis already has a defined path to have that condition evaluated by a qualified physician before any refusal is verified. The petition would add a second layer of process on top of one that already exists. MROs are licensed physicians with specialized training and qualification under Sec.40.121, and evaluating medical explanations is the core of what they do. MROs who follow the procedures in part 40 are already fully equipped to handle these conditions. No additional regulatory changes are required. 2. A 72-Hour Window Undermines the Purpose of an Immediate Observed Recollection
When an invalid result is not medically explained, Sec.40.159(a)(5) requires that the recollection occur immediately, under direct observation, with the minimum possible advance notice to the employee. That immediacy is the safeguard. An invalid result can signal adulteration with a product the laboratory cannot identify, and the observed recollection is the Department's answer to it. The petition would allow up to 72 hours to pass, with the employee fully aware a recollection is coming, before the observed collection may proceed. That is time for drug use to fall below cutoffs and time to plan the next attempt. The petitioner describes the window as finite. We agree it is finite, but it is long enough to defeat the purpose of the recollection. Meanwhile, nothing in the petition removes the employee from safety-sensitive duty while the window runs. The traveling public deserves better than that gap. 3. The Proposal Adds Cost, Delay and Inconsistency Without Added Accuracy
Requiring written MRO determinations on every submitted document, and consultation with a urologist or mental health professional, would add cost and delay for employers, particularly the small owner-operators and small carriers who make up much of the regulated community. It would also invite disputes over whether documentation was "sufficient" and whether a consultation was adequately "considered." The Sec.40.193 referral physician must already have expertise in the medical issue raised, so a further specialist consultation is largely duplicative. The petition suggests that, without new standards, MRO determinations may be inconsistent. When an MRO follows the procedures part 40 already requires, the employee's medical explanation is heard and evaluated. Where an individual service agent fails to follow those procedures, the Department already has remedies, including Public Interest Exclusion proceedings under Subpart R. The answer is to enforce the existing rule, not to add new steps for every employee and employer.
National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington D. C. 20006 (888) 31-NDASA www.ndasa.com
"The voice of the drug and alcohol testing industry"
4. The Alternate Specimen Is the Better Answer
The Department has already provided a practical solution. Since May 2023 the final rule authorizing oral fluid testing, Sec.40.193 permits a collector to proceed with an alternate specimen, and Sec.40.159(a)(5) directs the MRO to recommend an alternate specimen, such as oral fluid when the original was urine, where practicable. For an employee with a genuine voiding disorder or a recurring urinary chemistry issue, an observed oral fluid collection removes the problem entirely, without delay and without weakening the test. NDASA respectfully suggests that the Department's energy is best spent expanding the availability of oral fluid testing across DOT programs, rather than adding new steps to the urine process. Conclusion
NDASA supports a testing program that is fair to every employee and that the public can trust. MROs who follow the procedures in part 40 are already equipped to handle the conditions the petition describes, and the alternate specimen offers a direct remedy. The proposed changes would delay observed recollections, add burden and create new grounds for dispute, all without improving accuracy. For these reasons, NDASA respectfully urges the Department to deny the petition. We remain committed to supporting the Department's efforts and stand ready to collaborate with ODAPC on the continued rollout of oral fluid testing and any other matters that strengthen the program. Thank you for the important work that each of you do every day in the interest of public safety.
Respectfully Submitted,
M. Jo McGuire, BS, CSAPA
Executive Director
National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA)
1629 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20006 (888) 31-NDASA | info@ndasa.com | ndasa.com
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2026-3664-0054
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Urges EPA To Exclude Wildfire PM2.5 Data From Apple Valley Monitor to Maintain Attainment Designation
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
October 29, 2026
Anne Vogel, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Mail Code: R-19J
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
RE: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0078: 120-day Letter Response
Dear Anne Vogel:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), on behalf of Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, submits the following information in response to the Environmental Protection ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 29, 2026 Anne Vogel, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Mail Code: R-19J Chicago, IL 60604-3507 RE: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0078: 120-day Letter Response Dear Anne Vogel: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), on behalf of Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, submits the following information in response to the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) "120-day" letter, dated October 2, 2026. The letter notifies Minnesota of EPA's intention to modify the State's initial designation recommendation when finalizing the area designation for the 2024 revision to the annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The EPA has provided 30 days to respond to the 120-day letter, which they must receive by November 1, 2026.
The MPCA submitted to EPA Minnesota initial designation recommendation on January 16, 2025. The letter recommended an initial area designation of attainment for the entire State. The recommendation was based on measurement data collected during the years 2021-2023. The EPA intends to finalize designations based on the most recent three years of certified monitoring data available, which now spans the years 2023-2025.
Using data from more recent years, the EPA identified Dakota County, within the County-Based Statistical Area "Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI" as an area containing a monitor with a design value calculated from the measurements that could result in a designation of nonattainment without further information. One monitor, Apple Valley (27-037-0470), has 2023-2025 based design value of 9.1 ug/m(3). The 2024 revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 9.0 ug/m(3).
The MPCA has prepared an Exceptional Events demonstration that shows the exclusion of PM2.5 concentration data on July 12, 2025, from the Apple Valley (27-037-0470) monitor will result in an annual PM2.5 design value of 9.0 ug/m(3), meeting the standard. The findings show the monitor on that day was significantly impacted by wildfires originating in Canada.
The demonstration fulfills the criteria outlined in the EPA's 2016 Exceptional Events Rule. It shows a clear causal relationship between the wildfires and the monitored PM2.5 exceedance. It contains evidence the event was not reasonably controllable and preventable, it was a natural event, and the public was promptly notified at the time of occurrence. The EPA sent the MPCA a letter dated July 29, Anne Vogel Page 2 October 29, 2026 2026, confirming the data has regulatory significance for designating attainment for the 2024 revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The MPCA held a public comment for 30 days, and the agency received two comments, both of which supported the exclusion of the data measured during the exceptional event from consideration in the attainment designation.
The MPCA requests the EPA concur with the evidence in the "Exceptional event demonstration for 2024 annual PM2.5 NAAQS", dated October 2026, submitted via SPeCS, and exclude hourly PM2.5 air quality measurements from the Apple Valley (27-037-0470) monitoring site on July 12, 2025. This additional information supports, and Minnesota recommends, a finalized designation of attainment for the area.
The 120-day letter identifies two other Minnesota Counties, Blue Earth and Pine. Blue Earth County is within the County-Based Statistical Area "Mankato-North Mankato-MN County-Based Statistical Area". Pine County is represented as a single county. PM2.5 monitoring in these areas began after the State initial designation recommendation period of 2021-2023. The monitoring began during the 2023-2025 period.
One monitoring site, Rosa Parks Elementary (27-013-5510), measures PM2.5 in Blue Earth County. The monitor began measuring ambient PM2.5 concentrations in July 2024 and only has enough creditable samples counting toward data completeness to calculate an annual mean for the year 2025. This is insufficient for calculating a 3-year average design value to compare with the revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The other monitoring site, Lake Lena (27-115-3061), measures PM2.5 in Pine County. This monitor is on Tribally owned Fee Simple Land and is run by the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe. The monitor began measuring ambient PM2.5 concentrations in October 2025 and does not have enough creditable samples counting toward data completeness to calculate an annual mean for the year. Effectively, there is no data available for calculating a 3-year average design value to compare with the revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The monitors in Blue Earth and Pine Counties were not listed in the original initial designation recommendation letters. The MPCA agrees with EPA that these monitors have insufficient data to calculate a valid design value for the years 2023-2025 due to beginning operation during this period.
The Blue Earth County and Pine County monitors have insufficient data to calculate a valid design value for the years 2023-2025 due to beginning operation during this period. Blue Earth County and Pine County do not contain violating monitors. The additional information on the monitoring start dates and insufficient number of creditable samples counting toward data completeness supports, and Minnesota recommends, a finalized designation of attainment/unclassifiable for the areas, the same designation as EPA's stated intention for the Rest of the State.
The Exceptional Events demonstration was submitted to SPeCS for Exceptional Events on October 22, 2026.
Anne Vogel Page 3 October 29, 2026
As the Commissioner of the MPCA, duly authorized by the Governor of Minnesota, I submit this information and recommendation on behalf of Governor Walz.
If you have any questions, please contact Megan Kuhl-Stennes at Megan.KuhlStennes@state.mn.us or (651) 757-2455.
Sincerely,
Katrina Kessler, P.E.
Commissioner
MKS/mh
cc:
Chief Executive Virgil Wind, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (electronic)
President Grant Johnson, Prairie Island Indian Community (electronic)
Chairman Cole Miller, Shakopee Mdewakaton Sioux Community (electronic)
Gail Good, Air Management Director, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (electronic)
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0078-0694
October 29, 2026
Anne Vogel, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Mail Code: R-19J
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
RE: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0078: 120-day Letter Response
Dear Anne Vogel:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), on behalf of Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, submits the following information in response to the Environmental Protection ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 29, 2026 Anne Vogel, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Mail Code: R-19J Chicago, IL 60604-3507 RE: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0078: 120-day Letter Response Dear Anne Vogel: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), on behalf of Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, submits the following information in response to the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) "120-day" letter, dated October 2, 2026. The letter notifies Minnesota of EPA's intention to modify the State's initial designation recommendation when finalizing the area designation for the 2024 revision to the annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The EPA has provided 30 days to respond to the 120-day letter, which they must receive by November 1, 2026.
The MPCA submitted to EPA Minnesota initial designation recommendation on January 16, 2025. The letter recommended an initial area designation of attainment for the entire State. The recommendation was based on measurement data collected during the years 2021-2023. The EPA intends to finalize designations based on the most recent three years of certified monitoring data available, which now spans the years 2023-2025.
Using data from more recent years, the EPA identified Dakota County, within the County-Based Statistical Area "Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI" as an area containing a monitor with a design value calculated from the measurements that could result in a designation of nonattainment without further information. One monitor, Apple Valley (27-037-0470), has 2023-2025 based design value of 9.1 ug/m(3). The 2024 revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 9.0 ug/m(3).
The MPCA has prepared an Exceptional Events demonstration that shows the exclusion of PM2.5 concentration data on July 12, 2025, from the Apple Valley (27-037-0470) monitor will result in an annual PM2.5 design value of 9.0 ug/m(3), meeting the standard. The findings show the monitor on that day was significantly impacted by wildfires originating in Canada.
The demonstration fulfills the criteria outlined in the EPA's 2016 Exceptional Events Rule. It shows a clear causal relationship between the wildfires and the monitored PM2.5 exceedance. It contains evidence the event was not reasonably controllable and preventable, it was a natural event, and the public was promptly notified at the time of occurrence. The EPA sent the MPCA a letter dated July 29, Anne Vogel Page 2 October 29, 2026 2026, confirming the data has regulatory significance for designating attainment for the 2024 revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The MPCA held a public comment for 30 days, and the agency received two comments, both of which supported the exclusion of the data measured during the exceptional event from consideration in the attainment designation.
The MPCA requests the EPA concur with the evidence in the "Exceptional event demonstration for 2024 annual PM2.5 NAAQS", dated October 2026, submitted via SPeCS, and exclude hourly PM2.5 air quality measurements from the Apple Valley (27-037-0470) monitoring site on July 12, 2025. This additional information supports, and Minnesota recommends, a finalized designation of attainment for the area.
The 120-day letter identifies two other Minnesota Counties, Blue Earth and Pine. Blue Earth County is within the County-Based Statistical Area "Mankato-North Mankato-MN County-Based Statistical Area". Pine County is represented as a single county. PM2.5 monitoring in these areas began after the State initial designation recommendation period of 2021-2023. The monitoring began during the 2023-2025 period.
One monitoring site, Rosa Parks Elementary (27-013-5510), measures PM2.5 in Blue Earth County. The monitor began measuring ambient PM2.5 concentrations in July 2024 and only has enough creditable samples counting toward data completeness to calculate an annual mean for the year 2025. This is insufficient for calculating a 3-year average design value to compare with the revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The other monitoring site, Lake Lena (27-115-3061), measures PM2.5 in Pine County. This monitor is on Tribally owned Fee Simple Land and is run by the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe. The monitor began measuring ambient PM2.5 concentrations in October 2025 and does not have enough creditable samples counting toward data completeness to calculate an annual mean for the year. Effectively, there is no data available for calculating a 3-year average design value to compare with the revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The monitors in Blue Earth and Pine Counties were not listed in the original initial designation recommendation letters. The MPCA agrees with EPA that these monitors have insufficient data to calculate a valid design value for the years 2023-2025 due to beginning operation during this period.
The Blue Earth County and Pine County monitors have insufficient data to calculate a valid design value for the years 2023-2025 due to beginning operation during this period. Blue Earth County and Pine County do not contain violating monitors. The additional information on the monitoring start dates and insufficient number of creditable samples counting toward data completeness supports, and Minnesota recommends, a finalized designation of attainment/unclassifiable for the areas, the same designation as EPA's stated intention for the Rest of the State.
The Exceptional Events demonstration was submitted to SPeCS for Exceptional Events on October 22, 2026.
Anne Vogel Page 3 October 29, 2026
As the Commissioner of the MPCA, duly authorized by the Governor of Minnesota, I submit this information and recommendation on behalf of Governor Walz.
If you have any questions, please contact Megan Kuhl-Stennes at Megan.KuhlStennes@state.mn.us or (651) 757-2455.
Sincerely,
Katrina Kessler, P.E.
Commissioner
MKS/mh
cc:
Chief Executive Virgil Wind, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (electronic)
President Grant Johnson, Prairie Island Indian Community (electronic)
Chairman Cole Miller, Shakopee Mdewakaton Sioux Community (electronic)
Gail Good, Air Management Director, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (electronic)
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0078-0694
Inter Tribal Association of Arizona Urges Census Bureau to Pause 2030 Residence and Demographic Question Changes Over Native Data and Consultation Concerns
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
October 28, 2026
Via Regulations.gov
Docket No. USBC-2026-0628
Daniel Sweeney
Deputy General Counsel for Economic, Statistical, and Regulatory Affairs
Office of the General Counsel
Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave NW
Washington, DC 20230
Re: Comments of the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona, Inc. (ITAA) to the Notice for Public Comment on the Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 28, 2026 Via Regulations.gov Docket No. USBC-2026-0628 Daniel Sweeney Deputy General Counsel for Economic, Statistical, and Regulatory Affairs Office of the General Counsel Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, DC 20230 Re: Comments of the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona, Inc. (ITAA) to the Notice for Public Comment on the Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; ProposedResidence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions (91 Fed. Reg. 57524)
Dear Counsel Sweeney:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona, Inc. (ITAA) regarding the Notice for Public Comment on the U.S. Census Bureau's (the Bureau) Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions published in the Federal Register on proposed changes which has a comment period ending on November 2, 2026 (Notice).
1
Under the Notice, the Census Bureau proposes to change residency requirements and to remove "race and ethnicity" questions from inclusion on the 2030 Decennial Census. The proposed changes will reduce the visibility of Native communities in federal statistics without establishing an adequate replacement for obtaining this information, which is necessary for the United States to meet its trust responsibility to tribes.
ITAA is highly concerned that the proposed rule has been proposed without meaningful government-to-government consultation and that the proposed rule will eliminate American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) demographic data that is essential to Tribal self-governance, meeting federal trust and treaty obligations, and providing resources for Tribes under federally funded programs. ITAA also has concerns that the new residence criteria has not been adequately tested in Tribal communities and will not accurately reflect AI/AN living arrangements. In addition, the proposed rule changes will undermine the collection of demographic data necessary to protect Native voting rights and ensure fair political representation.
ABOUT ITAA
ITAA is an inter-tribal consortium of 21 federally recognized Indian Tribes with lands in Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico. The Member Tribes of ITAA have advocated together since 1952 on issues of common interest and concern. ITAA is governed by the highest elected Tribal officials from each Tribe, including Tribal chairpersons, presidents, and governors.
ITAA and its Member Tribes rely extensively on census data for governmental planning, housing, infrastructure development, public health initiatives, economic development, education, emergency management, voting rights advocacy, and participation in federal funding programs. Accurate and reliable census data are therefore critical to Tribal self-governance and self-determination.
ITAA and its Member Tribes rely extensively on decennial census and American Community Survey data to support governmental planning, economic development, infrastructure investment, housing, public health, education, emergency management, natural resource management, and voter representation. Census data also informs federal funding allocations and program administration affecting Tribal communities throughout Arizona and across Indian Country. Accurate and timely demographic information is therefore essential to Tribal self-governance, informed decision-making, and effective government-to-government relations with federal agencies.
While ITAA's comments focus on issues affecting Tribal governments collectively, each Member Tribe will experience the consequences of these proposed changes differently. Individual Tribes may have unique concerns regarding census accuracy, demographic reporting, federal funding formulas, redistricting, voting rights enforcement, housing programs, public health planning, and other governmental functions that depend upon reliable census data. Meaningful Tribal consultation is necessary to ensure that these Tribal-specific impacts are identified and considered before any final action is taken.
Accordingly, before moving forward, the Census Bureau should pause further implementation of the proposed rule and engage in meaningful one-on-one government-to-government consultation with Tribal Nations. Following consultation and the release of any revised proposal and supporting analyses, ITAA requests that the Census Bureau provide an additional comment period of 60-days to allow Tribes and Tribal organizations adequate time to review the information and provide informed feedback.
3
LACK OF TRIBAL CONSULTATION
The Census Bureau should strengthen the accuracy, reliability, and usefulness of AI/AN demographic data and address the longstanding Native undercount through meaningful government-to-government consultation. Tribal consultation serves a purpose distinct from ordinary public participation because Executive Order 13175 requires an accountable process for meaningful and timely input from Tribal officials when agencies develop policies with Tribal implications. 2 The opportunity to submit written comments under the Administrative Procedure Act therefore should complement, rather than substitute for government-to-government consultation. 3
The Department of Commerce's consultation policy 4 likewise provides for government-to-government engagement concerning Tribal self-government, resources, and rights. ITAA requests adherence to that policy through substantive exchanges that could influence the Bureau's decisions for the better, rather than treating one 2-hour online session for all Tribes in the United States as sufficient consultation.
The Bureau scheduled a virtual Tribal consultation for October 2, 2026. Its invitation expressly acknowledged that it provided two weeks' advance notice rather than the standard thirty days it aims to provide, citing operational deadlines and litigation obligations. This compressed consultation process did not provide a meaningful opportunity for Tribes to provide input on the proposal before the Bureau may make a final decision.
Tribal leaders need time to obtain technical advice, consult with their governments, and assess impacts on individual programs and communities. The Bureau should offer additional formal consultations, release relevant technical program analysis in advance, and explain in writing how it addresses Tribal concerns. ITAA requests suspension of further action until that process is complete. The requested sixty-day extension should begin after the additional consultations and release of the supporting materials.
Specific Comments on the Notice
The Bureau's discretion over census design must be exercised within its statutory authority and supported by reasoned analysis. 5 Congress has authorized collection of information beyond the basic headcount, and the Supreme Court has recognized the longstanding use of the census for demographic information. 6 An agency must also consider important aspects of the problem and explain the relationship between the 2 Exec. Order No. 13175. 3 Id; see also 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(c). 4 Tribal Consultation and Coordination Policy for the U.S. Department of Commerce, 78 Fed. Reg. 33331 (June 4, 2013). 5 13 U.S.C. Sec. 141(a), (c); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). 6 13 U.S.C. Sec. 141(a), (c); Dep't of Com. v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 769-70 (2019).
evidence and its chosen policy. 7 These principles require a careful assessment of the consequences for Tribal governments and Native people. 8
A.
Eliminating Demographic Data Undermines the Federal Trust Responsibility
Federal agencies cannot effectively fulfill trust and treaty obligations if they lack reliable information concerning the size, location, and characteristics of the Native populations they serve. Reliable AI/AN population information helps agencies understand the communities to which those responsibilities apply. Removing a principal source of such information would weaken the factual foundation for administering Tribal-serving programs. ITAA therefore views the proposed restriction as inconsistent with the federal government's responsibilities to Tribal Nations.
Federal agencies likewise depend on accurate demographic information to fulfill trust and treaty obligations owed to Tribal Nations. The federal trust responsibility requires the United States to make informed decisions regarding programs and services affecting Tribal communities. Eliminating a primary source of AI/AN demographic information will impede agencies' ability to understand changing Tribal populations and evaluate whether federal programs are reaching intended beneficiaries.
The proposal also implicates Tribal data sovereignty concerns. Tribal Nations possess inherent interests in how information about their citizens and communities is collected, interpreted, and used. The elimination of direct AI/AN demographic reporting will diminish Tribes' ability to access consistent national data regarding their communities and will reduce Tribal participation in defining how Native populations are represented in federal statistics.
The Bureau's own research demonstrates the far reach of census-driven data: 353 federal assistance programs used Decennial Census Programs data, in whole or in part, to distribute more than $2.8 trillion in fiscal year 2021. 9 That funding covers multiple census related data sources, including the American Community Survey (ACS). 10 While this does not mean that the proposed change would affect every program in the same way, it does show why the Bureau must assess downstream consequences before removing a foundational data source. 11
The Indian Housing Grant formula provides a concrete example. 12 For the AI/AN persons need variable, HUD's regulations rely on the most recent decennial census, adjusted for any confirmed statistically significant AI/AN undercount and updated with population estimates. 13 Other need variables initially use ACS five-year estimates. 14
Eliminating direct AI/AN demographic responses on the decennial census creates a serious question about the comparability and availability for future formula inputs and continued ACS collection alone does not answer it. 15
The ACS is not an adequate substitute for accurate AI/AN decennial census data. The ACS is fundamentally different from the Decennial Census. Rather than attempting to count the entire population, the ACS surveys a scientific sample of approximately 3.5 million addresses each year and uses those responses to produce estimates. The Census Bureau itself recognizes this important distinction, explaining that the ACS was designed to provide estimates of population characteristics, not population counts, and directing users seeking population totals to the Decennial Census or Population Estimates Program. 16 Accordingly, any reliance on the ACS does not resolve concerns regarding whether AI/AN people, Tribal citizens, and Native communities are accurately and meaningfully represented in the 2030 Census.
The housing example also demonstrates how demographic information supports Tribal self-governance. Congress expressly linked federal housing assistance to the Untied States' trust responsibility and directed that the housing assistance must recognize Tribal self-determination and self-governance. 17 Tribal housing plans must identify families' housing needs, explain how assistance will address geographic needs, and describe how available resources will be committed. 18 Therefore, having reliable population information is a critical foundation for Tribal decisions about where to build housing, which needs to prioritize, and how to allocate limited resources. 19
Tribal transportation provides another concrete example. The Tribal Transportation Program's statutory formula uses AI/AN population data within each Tribe's reservation or statistical area, as computed under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, and allocates thirty-nine percent of the tribal shares component according to relative population. 20 The program supports road construction and maintenance, transportation planning, and transit services on or providing access to Tribal lands. 21 Consequently, a loss of comparable population information will affect the factual basis for distributing transportation resources and impair Tribal governments' ability to plan infrastructure serving their communities. 22
13 Id.
14 24 C.F.R. 1000.330(b)(2)(2026).
15 24 C.F.R. 1000.330(b)(1)(2026).
16 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/about/information-guide.html
17 25 U.S.C. Sec. 4101(3)-(7).
18 25 U.S.C. Sec. 4112(b)(2)(A)-(C).
19 See id; see also 25 U.S.C. Sub Sec. 4101(7), 4112(b)(2)(A)-(C).
20 23 U.S.C. Sec. 202(b)(3)(B)(ii). The thirty-nine percent applies to the tribal shares component, not the entire program appropriation.
21 23 U.S.C. Sec. 202(a)(1)(A)(i), (B)-(C).
22 See 23 U.S.C. Sec. 202(a)(1), (b)(3)(B).
6
ITAA requests a program-by-program analysis of the impacts of the proposed rule, which should be developed with administering agencies and Tribal governments, to identify affected formulas, eligibility measures, and planning functions. 23 The analysis should describe the information that would be lost, proposed replacement sources, and the accuracy and geographic detail of those substitutes. 24 While the proposed rule does not establish a particular funding reduction, the Bureau should not proceed to adopt such a rule without explaining how it will prevent data gaps from impairing the continued delivery of services and programs throughout Indian country or obscuring the needs of Tribal communities in the first instance.
B.
Tribal Political Status Does Not Replace AI/AN Demographic Identity
Tribal citizenship and AI/AN demographic identity measure different things. 25 Tribal citizenship data does not answer the same questions as demographic data. Federal agencies, courts, researchers, and Tribal governments frequently require information about all AI/AN persons, including individuals who identify as Native, but are not enrolled members of federally recognized Tribes.
A Tribe determines its own membership under its laws. 26 A census response records a person's self-identification, which neither grants citizenship nor establishes eligibility for benefits requiring enrollment. 27 In Morton v. Mancari, the Supreme Court recognized the political character of the BIA employment preference for members of federally recognized Tribes. 28 That holding does not make demographic information about Native people irrelevant or require its elimination. 29
Footnote 11 of the Notice acknowledges that Tribal membership questions are not necessarily race or ethnicity questions. 30 However, the proposal is silent as to whether or not a Tribal affiliation question will survive the elimination of race and ethnicity questions. This raises uncertainty concerning the scope and implementation of the proposed regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act. 31 Specifically, the Bureau's failure to identify its intended treatment of Tribal citizenship leaves Tribal Nations unable to evaluate whether the agency is contemplating a method of federal data collection that could affect how their sovereign citizenship determinations are characterized, verified, or used. 32 The Bureau should therefore clarify its intended treatment of Tribal citizenship to provide Tribal Nations an opportunity to evaluate and comment on any specific alternative before finalizing the regulations. The Bureau should explicitly resolve that issue in consultation with Tribes. ITAA requests retention of both direct AI/AN demographic responses and self-reported Tribal affiliation, with clear explanations that neither substitutes for a Tribe's citizenship determination. 33
Notably, an enrollment-only measure will not capture all people who identify as AI/AN, including those who are eligible for enrollment but not yet enrolled 34 and multiracial Native people who may not be enrolled in a federally recognized Tribe yet they still live in a Tribal community. 35 Additionally, Tribal enrollment records do not necessarily establish current residence, as Tribal rolls do not necessarily actively track a person's residence. To ensure that the United States has the data necessary to meet its trust responsibilities, and accurate data is available to the Tribes to support their own self-determination, the Census Bureau needs to explain how it will obtain comparable data for AI/AN people identifying alone and in combination with other identities, both on and off Tribal lands. 36
While administrative records may supplement enumeration, their availability does not establish equivalence. 37 The Census Act conditions reliance on existing sources consistent with the kind, timeliness, quality, and scope of the statistics required. 38 The Census Bureau needs to disclose the proposed sources it intends to rely upon to collect the data that has otherwise been collected by the decennial census, and test such data sources for matching methods, missing-data rates, and procedures for correcting misclassification. 39 The Bureau should also test whether records created for taxation, benefits, or for other purposes can accurately capture Native identity and residence. 40
The Bureau must also address Tribal data sovereignty. It should not presume that every Tribe in the United States will agree to provide enrollment records to fill gaps created by the proposed rule. Further, any arrangement with a Tribe for such records will require an appropriate Tribal authorization and carefully define permitted uses, safeguards, retention, and restrictions on further disclosure. 41 And Federal confidentiality requirements will remain applicable. 42
32 See id; see also Air Transp. Ass'n of Am. v. FAA, 169 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (holding where an agency fails to disclose critical material that it relies on, commenters are deprived of the right to meaningfully participate in rulemaking).
33 U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 15, at 1; Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 72 n.32.
34 Some Tribes do not enroll young children, yet those children still reside in their Tribal community.
35 U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 15, at 1; Mancari, 417 U.S. at 553-55, n.24.
36 U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 15, at 1.
37 13 U.S.C. Sec. 6(c).
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 See 13 U.S.C. Sec. 9(a)(1)-(3).
42 Id.
8
Requiring or effectively pressuring Tribal governments to supplement federal data collection could impose substantial new administrative and financial burdens on Tribes. Including, the need to collect additional information from Tribal citizens, reservation residents, or individuals eligible for Tribal services; verify and maintain those records; respond to federal requests; and develop procedures necessary to protect sensitive Tribal records. These obligations could operate as an unfunded federal mandate in practice by shifting the cost and responsibility for remedying deficiencies in federal data collection on to Tribal governments without corresponding federal resources. Therefore, the Bureau should avoid adopting any approach that depends on Tribal governments undertaking new data-collecting or record-producing procedures unless participation is voluntary, appropriately authorized by the Tribe, and supported with sufficient federal funding and technical assistance.
C.
Residence Criteria Must Reflect Native Peoples' Living Arrangements
The concept of "usual residence" has guided census enumeration since the first Census Act, which directed enumeration according to a person's usual place of abode. 43
In Franklin v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court recognized that "usual residence" may encompass more than physical presence and may account for enduring ties despite temporary absence. 44 However, that decision concerned allocating overseas federal personnel among states and does not establish a rule requiring Tribal citizens to be counted on Tribal lands. 45
Proposed Section 60.2 (Sec. 60.2) would determine residence based on the greatest number of qualifying days between January 2 and April 1, and it would permit a person to receive credit for a day at multiple residences, while identifying tax records as evidence of residence. 46 Many Tribal citizens maintain enduring connections to their communities while temporarily residing elsewhere for employment, higher education, military service, health care, or caregiving obligations. A residence methodology that relies heavily on administrative records may not accurately reflect those realities. For many Native persons, a mailing or tax address (which is likely to be a P.O. Box for remote and rural reservations) will differ from a physical residence. The Bureau needs to demonstrate through Tribal-specific testing that the methodology of the proposed rule could accurately locate Tribal people in these circumstances. 47
ITAA requests clarification of how the Bureau would (1) distinguish temporary absences from changes in residence for Tribal people, (2) resolve equal-day allocations, and (3) address discrepancies between tax addresses and actual living arrangements, particularly for the AI/AN population. The census must have a methodology that counts each person once in the appropriate location, rather than assigning residence solely on the basis of Tribal citizenship or a tax mailing address. Additionally, the Bureau needs to explain how it will resolve competing addresses, incomplete records, and temporary absences, and it should identify modeled effects on Tribal populations specifically. An accessible process for correcting residence errors must exist and Tribal citizenship alone cannot be used to make this correction. Incomplete administrative records also should not be used to override an individual's actual place of residence. 48
Before finalizing the proposed rule, the Bureau needs to assess the effect of the rule on Tribal communities and explain how other administrative records will provide information consistent with the required kind, timeliness, quality, and scope of census statistics which are critically necessary for carrying out the United States' trust responsibility to Tribes. 49
D.
The Existing Native Undercount Requires Better Enumeration
The existing Native undercount follows a history in which federal enumeration and apportionment treated Native people differently from other populations. 50 The original Constitution excluded "Indians not taxed" from the apportionment population, and the National Archives identifies the 1890 Census as the first census to enumerate all classes of American Indians. 51 These historical exclusions differ from modern statistical undercounts, but they underscore the importance of ensuring that Native communities are accurately represented in contemporary census data. 52
The Bureau's 2020 Post-Enumeration Survey estimated a statistically significant national 5.64% undercount of AI/AN people, alone or in combination, living on reservations. 53 Removing demographic questions will make it difficult to determine whether future enumeration improves AI/AN coverage or merely conceals disparities within an overall population total. 54 This documented disparity warrants retaining the demographic information needed to evaluate AI/AN enumeration rather than assuming that an overall population count measures Native coverage. 55
48 See Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 72 n.32.
49 See 13 U.S.C. Sec. 6(c).
50 See James P. Collins, Native Americans in the Census, 1860-1890, Prologue, Summer 2006, https://archives.gov/publications/prologue/2006/summer/indian-census.html.
51 U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3; Collins, supra note 42.
52 See Collins, supra note 42.
53 U.S. Census Bureau Releases Estimates of Undercount and Overcount in the 2020 Census (Mar. 10, 2022), https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/2020-census-estimates-of-undercount-and-overcount.html (last visited Oct. 12, 2026).
54 U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 36; U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 15, at 1.
55 See U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 40.
10
The 2020 Census also supplied detailed information for 1,187 AI/AN tribes and villages. 56 That breadth illustrates the specificity at stake. If the proposed rule is adopted, the Census Bureau must have a plan for improving this coverage through Tribal partnerships, local enumerators, address verification, accessible response methods, and appropriate language assistance. The Bureau must establish measurable goals and make results useful to individual Tribal governments.
The proposed rule states that the Census would leave ACS demographic questions available, but that does not make ACS estimates interchangeable with decennial counts. 57 Standard ACS one-year estimates cover areas with populations of at least 65,000. 58 Five-year estimates cover all areas and pool sixty months of observations. 59 Smaller tribal communities can therefore receive ACS data, but those estimates differ in timing and precision from a census count. 60 The Bureau should demonstrate that any substitute meets the geographic and statistical requirements of the uses it would replace. The Census Bureau needs to conduct an analysis of whether proposed substitutes will preserve the geographic detail, precision, and comparability needed by all Tribal governments and the federal government. 61
Privacy concerns also warrant evaluating safeguards rather than presuming that demographic questions must be eliminated, because federal law already restricts the use and disclosure of identifiable census information. 62 The Bureau needs to evaluate these alternatives and their consequences for AI/AN coverage before adopting a final rule. 63
E.
Native Voting Districts in Arizona Require Reliable Demographic Evidence
In Arizona, accurate AI/AN population data is essential to evaluating whether congressional, state legislative, county, school board, and other electoral boundaries divide Native communities or provide AI/AN communities an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. 64 Accurate AI/AN population data are essential not only for vote dilution analysis under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but also for evaluating compliance with constitutional redistricting requirements and ensuring equitable political representation. Broad population totals cannot show where Native voters are concentrated. Removing census race information will weaken the evidence available to evaluate vote dilution.
56 U.S. Census Bureau Releases 2020 Census Data for Nearly 1,500 Detailed Race and Ethnicity Groups, Tribes and Villages (Sept. 21, 2023), https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/2020-census-detailed-dhc-file-a.html (last visited Oct. 12, 2026).
57 See U.S. Census Bureau, Using 1-Year or 5-Year American Community Survey Data (Sept. 2, 2025), https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/guidance/estimates.html (last visited Oct. 13, 2026).
58 Id.
59 Id.
60 Id.
61 See id; 13 U.S.C. Sec. 6(c), 9(a)(1)-(3).
62 13 U.S.C. Sec. 9(a)(1)-(3).
63 See id; 13 U.S.C. Sec. 6(c).
64 U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 15, at 1; 52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301(a)-(b); 13 U.S.C. Sec. 141(a), (c).
11
Native population data are routinely used to evaluate whether Native voters are sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to form districts in which they have an opportunity to elect candidates of choice. The loss of direct AI/AN demographic information will impair the ability of Tribes, voters, courts, and redistricting bodies to evaluate Native voting strength following the 2030 Census. A particular claim or remedy requires a district-specific legal and factual analysis using available census data. Usable demographic information for AI/AN communities must be available, including relevant voting-age and geographic details, so that Tribal governments, voters, election officials, and courts can evaluate any districting maps adopted after 2030. 65
Native-language election assistance also depends on reliable federal statistics, and therefore, its data requirements must be described accurately. 66 Section 203 coverage determinations use ACS data in five-year increments or comparable census data to include a reservation-specific threshold for AI/AN citizens of voting age. 67 Since the proposal does not prohibit ACS demographic questions, it would not by itself repeal Section 203 or automatically end existing assistance requirements. 68 However, the Bureau should nevertheless explain how the proposed changes will affect the consistency and reliability of Native population data used across voting rights functions.
Before further action, ITAA requests a Tribal-specific assessment of effects on Arizona redistricting and voting rights enforcement. The Bureau should identify the products that will remain available, their geographic detail and error rates, and the method for measuring Native populations without direct AI/AN race responses. General assurances that other sources exist does not establish that those sources can support these tasks.
Conclusion
Accordingly, ITAA requests that the Census Bureau:
1. Withdraw the proposed elimination of direct AI/AN demographic questions;
2. Suspend further action pending meaningful government-to-government Tribal consultation and additional Tribal-specific impact analysis; and
3. Retain residence standards and data collection methods that accurately reflect Tribal communities and preserve reliable demographic information for federal funding, Tribal governance, and voting rights enforcement.
On behalf of ITAA, thank you for your consideration of the ITAA's comments. If you have any questions regarding these comments, I can be reached at (480) 258-4822 or maria.dadgar@itaa-az.org.
65 U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 15, at 1; 13 U.S.C. Sec. 141(a), (c).
66 52 U.S.C. Sec. 10503(b)(2)(A), (c), (e).
67 Id.
68 Id.
12
Sincerely,
INTER TRIBAL ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA
Shan Lewis
President, Inter Tribal Association of Arizona, Inc.
Vice Chairman, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe
CC:
ITAA Executive Committee
Tribal Leaders
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USBC-2026-0628-121768
October 28, 2026
Via Regulations.gov
Docket No. USBC-2026-0628
Daniel Sweeney
Deputy General Counsel for Economic, Statistical, and Regulatory Affairs
Office of the General Counsel
Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave NW
Washington, DC 20230
Re: Comments of the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona, Inc. (ITAA) to the Notice for Public Comment on the Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 28, 2026 Via Regulations.gov Docket No. USBC-2026-0628 Daniel Sweeney Deputy General Counsel for Economic, Statistical, and Regulatory Affairs Office of the General Counsel Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, DC 20230 Re: Comments of the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona, Inc. (ITAA) to the Notice for Public Comment on the Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; ProposedResidence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions (91 Fed. Reg. 57524)
Dear Counsel Sweeney:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona, Inc. (ITAA) regarding the Notice for Public Comment on the U.S. Census Bureau's (the Bureau) Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions published in the Federal Register on proposed changes which has a comment period ending on November 2, 2026 (Notice).
1
Under the Notice, the Census Bureau proposes to change residency requirements and to remove "race and ethnicity" questions from inclusion on the 2030 Decennial Census. The proposed changes will reduce the visibility of Native communities in federal statistics without establishing an adequate replacement for obtaining this information, which is necessary for the United States to meet its trust responsibility to tribes.
ITAA is highly concerned that the proposed rule has been proposed without meaningful government-to-government consultation and that the proposed rule will eliminate American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) demographic data that is essential to Tribal self-governance, meeting federal trust and treaty obligations, and providing resources for Tribes under federally funded programs. ITAA also has concerns that the new residence criteria has not been adequately tested in Tribal communities and will not accurately reflect AI/AN living arrangements. In addition, the proposed rule changes will undermine the collection of demographic data necessary to protect Native voting rights and ensure fair political representation.
ABOUT ITAA
ITAA is an inter-tribal consortium of 21 federally recognized Indian Tribes with lands in Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico. The Member Tribes of ITAA have advocated together since 1952 on issues of common interest and concern. ITAA is governed by the highest elected Tribal officials from each Tribe, including Tribal chairpersons, presidents, and governors.
ITAA and its Member Tribes rely extensively on census data for governmental planning, housing, infrastructure development, public health initiatives, economic development, education, emergency management, voting rights advocacy, and participation in federal funding programs. Accurate and reliable census data are therefore critical to Tribal self-governance and self-determination.
ITAA and its Member Tribes rely extensively on decennial census and American Community Survey data to support governmental planning, economic development, infrastructure investment, housing, public health, education, emergency management, natural resource management, and voter representation. Census data also informs federal funding allocations and program administration affecting Tribal communities throughout Arizona and across Indian Country. Accurate and timely demographic information is therefore essential to Tribal self-governance, informed decision-making, and effective government-to-government relations with federal agencies.
While ITAA's comments focus on issues affecting Tribal governments collectively, each Member Tribe will experience the consequences of these proposed changes differently. Individual Tribes may have unique concerns regarding census accuracy, demographic reporting, federal funding formulas, redistricting, voting rights enforcement, housing programs, public health planning, and other governmental functions that depend upon reliable census data. Meaningful Tribal consultation is necessary to ensure that these Tribal-specific impacts are identified and considered before any final action is taken.
Accordingly, before moving forward, the Census Bureau should pause further implementation of the proposed rule and engage in meaningful one-on-one government-to-government consultation with Tribal Nations. Following consultation and the release of any revised proposal and supporting analyses, ITAA requests that the Census Bureau provide an additional comment period of 60-days to allow Tribes and Tribal organizations adequate time to review the information and provide informed feedback.
3
LACK OF TRIBAL CONSULTATION
The Census Bureau should strengthen the accuracy, reliability, and usefulness of AI/AN demographic data and address the longstanding Native undercount through meaningful government-to-government consultation. Tribal consultation serves a purpose distinct from ordinary public participation because Executive Order 13175 requires an accountable process for meaningful and timely input from Tribal officials when agencies develop policies with Tribal implications. 2 The opportunity to submit written comments under the Administrative Procedure Act therefore should complement, rather than substitute for government-to-government consultation. 3
The Department of Commerce's consultation policy 4 likewise provides for government-to-government engagement concerning Tribal self-government, resources, and rights. ITAA requests adherence to that policy through substantive exchanges that could influence the Bureau's decisions for the better, rather than treating one 2-hour online session for all Tribes in the United States as sufficient consultation.
The Bureau scheduled a virtual Tribal consultation for October 2, 2026. Its invitation expressly acknowledged that it provided two weeks' advance notice rather than the standard thirty days it aims to provide, citing operational deadlines and litigation obligations. This compressed consultation process did not provide a meaningful opportunity for Tribes to provide input on the proposal before the Bureau may make a final decision.
Tribal leaders need time to obtain technical advice, consult with their governments, and assess impacts on individual programs and communities. The Bureau should offer additional formal consultations, release relevant technical program analysis in advance, and explain in writing how it addresses Tribal concerns. ITAA requests suspension of further action until that process is complete. The requested sixty-day extension should begin after the additional consultations and release of the supporting materials.
Specific Comments on the Notice
The Bureau's discretion over census design must be exercised within its statutory authority and supported by reasoned analysis. 5 Congress has authorized collection of information beyond the basic headcount, and the Supreme Court has recognized the longstanding use of the census for demographic information. 6 An agency must also consider important aspects of the problem and explain the relationship between the 2 Exec. Order No. 13175. 3 Id; see also 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(c). 4 Tribal Consultation and Coordination Policy for the U.S. Department of Commerce, 78 Fed. Reg. 33331 (June 4, 2013). 5 13 U.S.C. Sec. 141(a), (c); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). 6 13 U.S.C. Sec. 141(a), (c); Dep't of Com. v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 769-70 (2019).
evidence and its chosen policy. 7 These principles require a careful assessment of the consequences for Tribal governments and Native people. 8
A.
Eliminating Demographic Data Undermines the Federal Trust Responsibility
Federal agencies cannot effectively fulfill trust and treaty obligations if they lack reliable information concerning the size, location, and characteristics of the Native populations they serve. Reliable AI/AN population information helps agencies understand the communities to which those responsibilities apply. Removing a principal source of such information would weaken the factual foundation for administering Tribal-serving programs. ITAA therefore views the proposed restriction as inconsistent with the federal government's responsibilities to Tribal Nations.
Federal agencies likewise depend on accurate demographic information to fulfill trust and treaty obligations owed to Tribal Nations. The federal trust responsibility requires the United States to make informed decisions regarding programs and services affecting Tribal communities. Eliminating a primary source of AI/AN demographic information will impede agencies' ability to understand changing Tribal populations and evaluate whether federal programs are reaching intended beneficiaries.
The proposal also implicates Tribal data sovereignty concerns. Tribal Nations possess inherent interests in how information about their citizens and communities is collected, interpreted, and used. The elimination of direct AI/AN demographic reporting will diminish Tribes' ability to access consistent national data regarding their communities and will reduce Tribal participation in defining how Native populations are represented in federal statistics.
The Bureau's own research demonstrates the far reach of census-driven data: 353 federal assistance programs used Decennial Census Programs data, in whole or in part, to distribute more than $2.8 trillion in fiscal year 2021. 9 That funding covers multiple census related data sources, including the American Community Survey (ACS). 10 While this does not mean that the proposed change would affect every program in the same way, it does show why the Bureau must assess downstream consequences before removing a foundational data source. 11
The Indian Housing Grant formula provides a concrete example. 12 For the AI/AN persons need variable, HUD's regulations rely on the most recent decennial census, adjusted for any confirmed statistically significant AI/AN undercount and updated with population estimates. 13 Other need variables initially use ACS five-year estimates. 14
Eliminating direct AI/AN demographic responses on the decennial census creates a serious question about the comparability and availability for future formula inputs and continued ACS collection alone does not answer it. 15
The ACS is not an adequate substitute for accurate AI/AN decennial census data. The ACS is fundamentally different from the Decennial Census. Rather than attempting to count the entire population, the ACS surveys a scientific sample of approximately 3.5 million addresses each year and uses those responses to produce estimates. The Census Bureau itself recognizes this important distinction, explaining that the ACS was designed to provide estimates of population characteristics, not population counts, and directing users seeking population totals to the Decennial Census or Population Estimates Program. 16 Accordingly, any reliance on the ACS does not resolve concerns regarding whether AI/AN people, Tribal citizens, and Native communities are accurately and meaningfully represented in the 2030 Census.
The housing example also demonstrates how demographic information supports Tribal self-governance. Congress expressly linked federal housing assistance to the Untied States' trust responsibility and directed that the housing assistance must recognize Tribal self-determination and self-governance. 17 Tribal housing plans must identify families' housing needs, explain how assistance will address geographic needs, and describe how available resources will be committed. 18 Therefore, having reliable population information is a critical foundation for Tribal decisions about where to build housing, which needs to prioritize, and how to allocate limited resources. 19
Tribal transportation provides another concrete example. The Tribal Transportation Program's statutory formula uses AI/AN population data within each Tribe's reservation or statistical area, as computed under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, and allocates thirty-nine percent of the tribal shares component according to relative population. 20 The program supports road construction and maintenance, transportation planning, and transit services on or providing access to Tribal lands. 21 Consequently, a loss of comparable population information will affect the factual basis for distributing transportation resources and impair Tribal governments' ability to plan infrastructure serving their communities. 22
13 Id.
14 24 C.F.R. 1000.330(b)(2)(2026).
15 24 C.F.R. 1000.330(b)(1)(2026).
16 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/about/information-guide.html
17 25 U.S.C. Sec. 4101(3)-(7).
18 25 U.S.C. Sec. 4112(b)(2)(A)-(C).
19 See id; see also 25 U.S.C. Sub Sec. 4101(7), 4112(b)(2)(A)-(C).
20 23 U.S.C. Sec. 202(b)(3)(B)(ii). The thirty-nine percent applies to the tribal shares component, not the entire program appropriation.
21 23 U.S.C. Sec. 202(a)(1)(A)(i), (B)-(C).
22 See 23 U.S.C. Sec. 202(a)(1), (b)(3)(B).
6
ITAA requests a program-by-program analysis of the impacts of the proposed rule, which should be developed with administering agencies and Tribal governments, to identify affected formulas, eligibility measures, and planning functions. 23 The analysis should describe the information that would be lost, proposed replacement sources, and the accuracy and geographic detail of those substitutes. 24 While the proposed rule does not establish a particular funding reduction, the Bureau should not proceed to adopt such a rule without explaining how it will prevent data gaps from impairing the continued delivery of services and programs throughout Indian country or obscuring the needs of Tribal communities in the first instance.
B.
Tribal Political Status Does Not Replace AI/AN Demographic Identity
Tribal citizenship and AI/AN demographic identity measure different things. 25 Tribal citizenship data does not answer the same questions as demographic data. Federal agencies, courts, researchers, and Tribal governments frequently require information about all AI/AN persons, including individuals who identify as Native, but are not enrolled members of federally recognized Tribes.
A Tribe determines its own membership under its laws. 26 A census response records a person's self-identification, which neither grants citizenship nor establishes eligibility for benefits requiring enrollment. 27 In Morton v. Mancari, the Supreme Court recognized the political character of the BIA employment preference for members of federally recognized Tribes. 28 That holding does not make demographic information about Native people irrelevant or require its elimination. 29
Footnote 11 of the Notice acknowledges that Tribal membership questions are not necessarily race or ethnicity questions. 30 However, the proposal is silent as to whether or not a Tribal affiliation question will survive the elimination of race and ethnicity questions. This raises uncertainty concerning the scope and implementation of the proposed regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act. 31 Specifically, the Bureau's failure to identify its intended treatment of Tribal citizenship leaves Tribal Nations unable to evaluate whether the agency is contemplating a method of federal data collection that could affect how their sovereign citizenship determinations are characterized, verified, or used. 32 The Bureau should therefore clarify its intended treatment of Tribal citizenship to provide Tribal Nations an opportunity to evaluate and comment on any specific alternative before finalizing the regulations. The Bureau should explicitly resolve that issue in consultation with Tribes. ITAA requests retention of both direct AI/AN demographic responses and self-reported Tribal affiliation, with clear explanations that neither substitutes for a Tribe's citizenship determination. 33
Notably, an enrollment-only measure will not capture all people who identify as AI/AN, including those who are eligible for enrollment but not yet enrolled 34 and multiracial Native people who may not be enrolled in a federally recognized Tribe yet they still live in a Tribal community. 35 Additionally, Tribal enrollment records do not necessarily establish current residence, as Tribal rolls do not necessarily actively track a person's residence. To ensure that the United States has the data necessary to meet its trust responsibilities, and accurate data is available to the Tribes to support their own self-determination, the Census Bureau needs to explain how it will obtain comparable data for AI/AN people identifying alone and in combination with other identities, both on and off Tribal lands. 36
While administrative records may supplement enumeration, their availability does not establish equivalence. 37 The Census Act conditions reliance on existing sources consistent with the kind, timeliness, quality, and scope of the statistics required. 38 The Census Bureau needs to disclose the proposed sources it intends to rely upon to collect the data that has otherwise been collected by the decennial census, and test such data sources for matching methods, missing-data rates, and procedures for correcting misclassification. 39 The Bureau should also test whether records created for taxation, benefits, or for other purposes can accurately capture Native identity and residence. 40
The Bureau must also address Tribal data sovereignty. It should not presume that every Tribe in the United States will agree to provide enrollment records to fill gaps created by the proposed rule. Further, any arrangement with a Tribe for such records will require an appropriate Tribal authorization and carefully define permitted uses, safeguards, retention, and restrictions on further disclosure. 41 And Federal confidentiality requirements will remain applicable. 42
32 See id; see also Air Transp. Ass'n of Am. v. FAA, 169 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (holding where an agency fails to disclose critical material that it relies on, commenters are deprived of the right to meaningfully participate in rulemaking).
33 U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 15, at 1; Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 72 n.32.
34 Some Tribes do not enroll young children, yet those children still reside in their Tribal community.
35 U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 15, at 1; Mancari, 417 U.S. at 553-55, n.24.
36 U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 15, at 1.
37 13 U.S.C. Sec. 6(c).
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 See 13 U.S.C. Sec. 9(a)(1)-(3).
42 Id.
8
Requiring or effectively pressuring Tribal governments to supplement federal data collection could impose substantial new administrative and financial burdens on Tribes. Including, the need to collect additional information from Tribal citizens, reservation residents, or individuals eligible for Tribal services; verify and maintain those records; respond to federal requests; and develop procedures necessary to protect sensitive Tribal records. These obligations could operate as an unfunded federal mandate in practice by shifting the cost and responsibility for remedying deficiencies in federal data collection on to Tribal governments without corresponding federal resources. Therefore, the Bureau should avoid adopting any approach that depends on Tribal governments undertaking new data-collecting or record-producing procedures unless participation is voluntary, appropriately authorized by the Tribe, and supported with sufficient federal funding and technical assistance.
C.
Residence Criteria Must Reflect Native Peoples' Living Arrangements
The concept of "usual residence" has guided census enumeration since the first Census Act, which directed enumeration according to a person's usual place of abode. 43
In Franklin v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court recognized that "usual residence" may encompass more than physical presence and may account for enduring ties despite temporary absence. 44 However, that decision concerned allocating overseas federal personnel among states and does not establish a rule requiring Tribal citizens to be counted on Tribal lands. 45
Proposed Section 60.2 (Sec. 60.2) would determine residence based on the greatest number of qualifying days between January 2 and April 1, and it would permit a person to receive credit for a day at multiple residences, while identifying tax records as evidence of residence. 46 Many Tribal citizens maintain enduring connections to their communities while temporarily residing elsewhere for employment, higher education, military service, health care, or caregiving obligations. A residence methodology that relies heavily on administrative records may not accurately reflect those realities. For many Native persons, a mailing or tax address (which is likely to be a P.O. Box for remote and rural reservations) will differ from a physical residence. The Bureau needs to demonstrate through Tribal-specific testing that the methodology of the proposed rule could accurately locate Tribal people in these circumstances. 47
ITAA requests clarification of how the Bureau would (1) distinguish temporary absences from changes in residence for Tribal people, (2) resolve equal-day allocations, and (3) address discrepancies between tax addresses and actual living arrangements, particularly for the AI/AN population. The census must have a methodology that counts each person once in the appropriate location, rather than assigning residence solely on the basis of Tribal citizenship or a tax mailing address. Additionally, the Bureau needs to explain how it will resolve competing addresses, incomplete records, and temporary absences, and it should identify modeled effects on Tribal populations specifically. An accessible process for correcting residence errors must exist and Tribal citizenship alone cannot be used to make this correction. Incomplete administrative records also should not be used to override an individual's actual place of residence. 48
Before finalizing the proposed rule, the Bureau needs to assess the effect of the rule on Tribal communities and explain how other administrative records will provide information consistent with the required kind, timeliness, quality, and scope of census statistics which are critically necessary for carrying out the United States' trust responsibility to Tribes. 49
D.
The Existing Native Undercount Requires Better Enumeration
The existing Native undercount follows a history in which federal enumeration and apportionment treated Native people differently from other populations. 50 The original Constitution excluded "Indians not taxed" from the apportionment population, and the National Archives identifies the 1890 Census as the first census to enumerate all classes of American Indians. 51 These historical exclusions differ from modern statistical undercounts, but they underscore the importance of ensuring that Native communities are accurately represented in contemporary census data. 52
The Bureau's 2020 Post-Enumeration Survey estimated a statistically significant national 5.64% undercount of AI/AN people, alone or in combination, living on reservations. 53 Removing demographic questions will make it difficult to determine whether future enumeration improves AI/AN coverage or merely conceals disparities within an overall population total. 54 This documented disparity warrants retaining the demographic information needed to evaluate AI/AN enumeration rather than assuming that an overall population count measures Native coverage. 55
48 See Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 72 n.32.
49 See 13 U.S.C. Sec. 6(c).
50 See James P. Collins, Native Americans in the Census, 1860-1890, Prologue, Summer 2006, https://archives.gov/publications/prologue/2006/summer/indian-census.html.
51 U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3; Collins, supra note 42.
52 See Collins, supra note 42.
53 U.S. Census Bureau Releases Estimates of Undercount and Overcount in the 2020 Census (Mar. 10, 2022), https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/2020-census-estimates-of-undercount-and-overcount.html (last visited Oct. 12, 2026).
54 U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 36; U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 15, at 1.
55 See U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 40.
10
The 2020 Census also supplied detailed information for 1,187 AI/AN tribes and villages. 56 That breadth illustrates the specificity at stake. If the proposed rule is adopted, the Census Bureau must have a plan for improving this coverage through Tribal partnerships, local enumerators, address verification, accessible response methods, and appropriate language assistance. The Bureau must establish measurable goals and make results useful to individual Tribal governments.
The proposed rule states that the Census would leave ACS demographic questions available, but that does not make ACS estimates interchangeable with decennial counts. 57 Standard ACS one-year estimates cover areas with populations of at least 65,000. 58 Five-year estimates cover all areas and pool sixty months of observations. 59 Smaller tribal communities can therefore receive ACS data, but those estimates differ in timing and precision from a census count. 60 The Bureau should demonstrate that any substitute meets the geographic and statistical requirements of the uses it would replace. The Census Bureau needs to conduct an analysis of whether proposed substitutes will preserve the geographic detail, precision, and comparability needed by all Tribal governments and the federal government. 61
Privacy concerns also warrant evaluating safeguards rather than presuming that demographic questions must be eliminated, because federal law already restricts the use and disclosure of identifiable census information. 62 The Bureau needs to evaluate these alternatives and their consequences for AI/AN coverage before adopting a final rule. 63
E.
Native Voting Districts in Arizona Require Reliable Demographic Evidence
In Arizona, accurate AI/AN population data is essential to evaluating whether congressional, state legislative, county, school board, and other electoral boundaries divide Native communities or provide AI/AN communities an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. 64 Accurate AI/AN population data are essential not only for vote dilution analysis under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but also for evaluating compliance with constitutional redistricting requirements and ensuring equitable political representation. Broad population totals cannot show where Native voters are concentrated. Removing census race information will weaken the evidence available to evaluate vote dilution.
56 U.S. Census Bureau Releases 2020 Census Data for Nearly 1,500 Detailed Race and Ethnicity Groups, Tribes and Villages (Sept. 21, 2023), https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/2020-census-detailed-dhc-file-a.html (last visited Oct. 12, 2026).
57 See U.S. Census Bureau, Using 1-Year or 5-Year American Community Survey Data (Sept. 2, 2025), https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/guidance/estimates.html (last visited Oct. 13, 2026).
58 Id.
59 Id.
60 Id.
61 See id; 13 U.S.C. Sec. 6(c), 9(a)(1)-(3).
62 13 U.S.C. Sec. 9(a)(1)-(3).
63 See id; 13 U.S.C. Sec. 6(c).
64 U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 15, at 1; 52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301(a)-(b); 13 U.S.C. Sec. 141(a), (c).
11
Native population data are routinely used to evaluate whether Native voters are sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to form districts in which they have an opportunity to elect candidates of choice. The loss of direct AI/AN demographic information will impair the ability of Tribes, voters, courts, and redistricting bodies to evaluate Native voting strength following the 2030 Census. A particular claim or remedy requires a district-specific legal and factual analysis using available census data. Usable demographic information for AI/AN communities must be available, including relevant voting-age and geographic details, so that Tribal governments, voters, election officials, and courts can evaluate any districting maps adopted after 2030. 65
Native-language election assistance also depends on reliable federal statistics, and therefore, its data requirements must be described accurately. 66 Section 203 coverage determinations use ACS data in five-year increments or comparable census data to include a reservation-specific threshold for AI/AN citizens of voting age. 67 Since the proposal does not prohibit ACS demographic questions, it would not by itself repeal Section 203 or automatically end existing assistance requirements. 68 However, the Bureau should nevertheless explain how the proposed changes will affect the consistency and reliability of Native population data used across voting rights functions.
Before further action, ITAA requests a Tribal-specific assessment of effects on Arizona redistricting and voting rights enforcement. The Bureau should identify the products that will remain available, their geographic detail and error rates, and the method for measuring Native populations without direct AI/AN race responses. General assurances that other sources exist does not establish that those sources can support these tasks.
Conclusion
Accordingly, ITAA requests that the Census Bureau:
1. Withdraw the proposed elimination of direct AI/AN demographic questions;
2. Suspend further action pending meaningful government-to-government Tribal consultation and additional Tribal-specific impact analysis; and
3. Retain residence standards and data collection methods that accurately reflect Tribal communities and preserve reliable demographic information for federal funding, Tribal governance, and voting rights enforcement.
On behalf of ITAA, thank you for your consideration of the ITAA's comments. If you have any questions regarding these comments, I can be reached at (480) 258-4822 or maria.dadgar@itaa-az.org.
65 U.S. Census Bureau, supra note 15, at 1; 13 U.S.C. Sec. 141(a), (c).
66 52 U.S.C. Sec. 10503(b)(2)(A), (c), (e).
67 Id.
68 Id.
12
Sincerely,
INTER TRIBAL ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA
Shan Lewis
President, Inter Tribal Association of Arizona, Inc.
Vice Chairman, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe
CC:
ITAA Executive Committee
Tribal Leaders
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USBC-2026-0628-121768
Food Research & Action Center Urges USDA to Reject Nebraska Demonstration Project Restricting Food Purchases
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
October 30, 2026
Ms. Shiela Corley
Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Administration
United States Department of Agriculture
Re: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State of Nebraska Demonstration Project (Docket Number FNA-2026-0463)
Dear Ms. Corley:
On behalf of the Food Research & Action Center, please accept these comments on the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food and Nutrition ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 30, 2026 Ms. Shiela Corley Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Administration United States Department of Agriculture Re: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State of Nebraska Demonstration Project (Docket Number FNA-2026-0463) Dear Ms. Corley: On behalf of the Food Research & Action Center, please accept these comments on the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food and NutritionAdministration (FNA) request for public comment on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State of Nebraska Demonstration Project.
FRAC is the leading national nonprofit organization working to improve public policies and public-private partnerships to eradicate poverty-related hunger and undernutrition in the United States. FRAC works with hundreds of national, state, and local nonprofit organizations, public agencies, corporations, and labor organizations to address hunger, food insecurity, and their root cause, poverty. FRAC uses data and evidence to analyze trends in food insecurity and the impacts of national programs to address hunger and nutrition.
Nebraska's proposed demonstration project to restrict purchases through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (Summer EBT) program raises serious questions about statutory authority, feasibility, cost, and its effects on families and retailers. We support efforts to improve nutrition and health, but the state has not shown that this approach will achieve those goals or adequately addressed how it would be implemented and evaluated.
The restrictions would increase the state's administrative workload and impose new costs on retailers, particularly small, rural stores. If retailers cannot absorb those costs or continue accepting SNAP, participants could have fewer places to buy food. The restrictions could also increase stigma and make it harder for families to meet their basic needs.
2
SNAP helps alleviate poverty, reduce food insecurity, and improve nutrition and health.
1
SNAP currently helps more than 116,000 Nebraska residents.
2
Of the households served in FY 24, 36 percent included children, 27 percent included older adults, 18 percent included non-elderly adults with a disability, and 45 percent included elderly people with disabilities.
3
Eight percent of Nebraskans participated in SNAP. Participation rates were one in 14 residents in rural areas, one in 11 in small towns, and one in 13 in metropolitan areas.
4
Additionally, Summer EBT reached over 200,000 children across the state in 2024, its inaugural year.
5
Given both programs' reach, Nebraska should ground any proposed change in sound evidence, meaningful community input, a lawful basis, and a credible evaluation of its costs and effects. Because this proposal does not meet those standards, we respectfully urge USDA to withdraw the waiver.
I. The Waiver's Harmful Impacts on the Economy, Including Retailers and State and Local Revenues
Nebraska's demonstration project restricts allowable food purchases in ways that could seriously and far-reaching harm not only for SNAP and Summer EBT participants but also Nebraska's economy, retailers, and the state agency.
1.
Threat to Small and Rural Retailers
Many independently owned grocery and convenience stores-particularly those in rural or low-income areas-lack the IT infrastructure or financial reserves needed to comply with these mandates. For convenience stores, SNAP transactions often make up a small share of total sales. If participating in the program becomes too costly or burdensome, many may simply opt out.
This would be catastrophic in food desert communities, where convenience stores are often the only nearby source of groceries. Fewer SNAP-authorized retailers would severely reduce food access in small towns and underserved urban areas, especially for families without reliable transportation. A recent study found that food restriction
1
Hartline-Grafton, H., & Plata-Nino, G. (2026).
SNAP: An Evidence-Based Program to Improve Food Security, Health, and Well-Being
. Food Research & Action Center.
https://frac.org/research/resource-library/snap-evidence-based-program
2
Food Research & Action Center. SNAP Participation Dashboard. https://frac.org/snap-participation-data-january-2025-present
3
USDA. (September 2026). Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Households: Fiscal Year 2024. https://www.fna.usda.gov/research/snap/characteristics-fy24
4
Food Research & Action Center. (May 2025). Protect SNAP to Reduce Hunger and Strengthen Local Economies in Nebraska. https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/SNAP_FactSheets_022525_NE28.pdf
5
Nebraska Appleseed. (April 2025). Nebraska Summer EBT 2025 is here. https://neappleseed.org/48942
3
waiver implementation in other states was associated with a 1.4 percent decline in SNAP-authorized convenience stores, or 3.0 fewer stores per 100 tracts.
6
2.
Economic Ripple Effects
SNAP supports food access and local businesses throughout Nebraska. In fiscal year 2025 , the program brought $328,247,275 of federal dollars to the state.
7
Fewer participating retailers would mean fewer SNAP dollars circulating in communities, reducing revenue for small businesses and lowering state and local sales tax collections. These ripple effects would compound economic insecurity, particularly in already vulnerable communities.
Retailers choose whether to participate in SNAP, but that choice does not eliminate the need to assess how the demonstration would affect the retail network. New costs and operational demands could lead some stores, particularly smaller retailers, to leave the program. Participants would then have fewer places to use their benefits, especially in areas with limited food shopping options.
8
A 2025 study found an association between greater access to SNAP-authorized retailers-particularly grocery stores and superstores-and better dietary quality among participants.
9
The authors of that study concluded, "these findings highlight the potential impact of food access on diet quality, and suggest that improving the availability of SNAP-authorized retailers in low-access areas may be an important strategy for enhancing public health and reducing diet-related conditions."
Nebraska should evaluate whether retailers can implement the restrictions and remain in SNAP, how any loss of retailers would affect food access, and whether reduced participation would affect local businesses.
3.
Risks to Customer Dignity and Retailer Roles
These restrictions also fundamentally alter the customer experience. Grocery clerks, many of whom are low-wage workers themselves, must act as "food police," monitoring
6
Benjamin W Chrisinger, Justin S White, SNAP Food Purchase Restrictions and Retailer Availability: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis,
Health Affairs Scholar
, 2026;, qxag275,
https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag275
7
USDA, SNAP Data Tables.
https://www.fna.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
8
Reed L, Johnson J, Lott M, & Story M. (2025).
The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives
. Durham, NC: Healthy Eating Research. Available at: https://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/the-current-state-of-knowledge-on-snap-restrictions-and-disincentives/
9
Li, Q., & Zhao, S. (2025). Access to SNAP-authorized retailers and diet quality among SNAP recipients. JAMA Health Forum, 6(4), e250677. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.0677
4
customers and potentially confronting them about what they can and cannot purchase.
This creates unnecessary conflict at checkout and undermines families' dignity and autonomy in deciding how to feed their households.
A recent non-peer-reviewed review of current SNAP restrictions found that they significantly increased both treatment stigma-such as recipients feeling judged when using SNAP benefits to shop-and identity stigma, including feeling disrespected or restricted by SNAP policies. Recipients were more likely to report feeling judged when paying for groceries with SNAP benefits and to view state SNAP policies as disrespectful and limiting their freedom.
10
4.
Reduced Flexibility During Emergencies
SNAP's flexibility has long been one of its strengths. During supply chain shortages, natural disasters, or declared emergencies, broad access to food choices lets families adapt to changing availability. Introducing rigid purchase restrictions would tie the program's hands in times of crisis, reducing its responsiveness and harming both participants and taxpayers.
This waiver fails to achieve its intended goals; instead, it increases hardship, reduces access to food, strains administrative systems, and damages local economies. It harms participants, retailers, and state infrastructure alike. Nebraska needs policies that enhance food access and support community resilience, not measures that create barriers and drive essential retailers out of the SNAP program.
II. SNAP's Purpose and Positive Impacts
A.
SNAP's Statutory Purpose
SNAP's statutory purpose, as declared by Congress, is "to promote the general welfare, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households. Congress finds that the limited food purchasing power of low-income households contributes to hunger and malnutrition among members of such households. Congress further finds that increased utilization of food in establishing and maintaining adequate national levels of nutrition will promote the distribution in a beneficial manner of the Nation's agricultural abundance and will strengthen the Nation's agricultural economy, as well as result in more orderly
10
Allcott et al. (2026).
The effects of SNAP sugary drink restrictions on consumption and welfare
. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w35659/w35659.pdf
5
marketing and distribution of foods. To alleviate such hunger and malnutrition, a supplemental nutrition assistance program is herein authorized which will permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for participation."
11
B.
SNAP's Positive Impacts
SNAP plays a critical role in addressing hunger and food insecurity in our communities across the nation, including Nebraska's. It is the first line of defense against hunger for low-income residents
1.
SNAP Promotes Food Security and Health
SNAP plays a critical role in improving the food security, health, and well-being of program participants across the lifespan.
12
For example, SNAP participation has been associated with improvements in overall adult and child health, birth outcomes, and diabetes management, as well as reductions in cost-related medication nonadherence, metabolic syndrome, child obesity, depressive symptoms, and psychological distress.
13
Conversely, research shows that a loss or reduction in SNAP benefits has detrimental impacts on food insecurity and health, especially for children and their families.
14
11
7 USC 2011: Congressional declaration of policy
. (2024). House.gov.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-2000-title7-section2011&num=0&edition=2000
12
Hartline-Grafton, H., SNAP and Public Health: The Role of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Improving the Health and Well-Being of Americans, Food Research & Action Center (2013).
13
See, e.g., Gregory, C. A., & Deb, P. (2015). Does SNAP improve your health? Food Policy, 50, 11-19; Sheward, R., Ettinger de Cuba, S., Cook, J., Pasquariello, J., & Coleman, S. (2014). RX for Healthy Child Development: Nutritious, Affordable Food Promotes Health and Economic Stability for Boston Families. Series - Hunger: A New Vital Sign. Boston, MA: Children's HealthWatch; Kreider, B., Pepper, J. V., Gundersen, C., & Jolliffe, D. (2012). Identifying the effects of SNAP (Food Stamps) on child health outcomes when participation is endogenous and misreported. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 107(499), 958-975; Almond, D., Hoynes, H. W., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2011). Inside the War on Poverty: the impact of food stamps on birth outcomes. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2), 387-403; Mayer, V. L., McDonough, K., Seligman, H., Mitra, N., & Long, J. A. (2016). Food insecurity, coping strategies and glucose control in low-income patients with diabetes. Public Health Nutrition, 19(6), 1103-1111; Srinivasan, M., & Pooler, J. A. (2018). Cost-related medication nonadherence for older adults participating in SNAP, 2013-2015. American Journal of Public Health, 108(2), 224-230; and Hoynes, H., Schanzenbach, D. W., & Almond, D. (2016). Long-run impacts of childhood access to the safety net. American Economic Review, 106(4), 903-934.
14
See e.g., Ettinger de Cuba, S., Harker, L., Weiss, I., Scully, K., Chilton, M., & Coleman, S., "Punishing Hard Work: The Unintended Consequences of Cutting SNAP Benefits," Boston, MA: Children's HealthWatch, 2013, available at https://childrenshealthwatch.org/wpcontent/uploads/cliffeffect_report_dec2013.pdf; Bovell, A., Ettinger de Cuba, S., Scully, K., Chilton, M., & Coleman, S., "Making SNAP Work for Families Leaving Poverty.
6
SNAP plays an important role in supporting the food security, nutrition, and health of older adults, allowing them to maintain their independence while also reducing their health care utilization and costs.
15
People with disabilities are at higher risk of food insecurity, making SNAP a critical support for this vulnerable population as well. Furthermore, those impacted by food insecurity are likely experiencing additional resource-related hardships, such as housing instability and energy insecurity.
An emerging body of evidence demonstrates that SNAP supports housing stability and alleviates the trade-offs that families often are forced to make between food, health care, and other basic necessities.
16
SNAP's positive impacts on health extend to reductions in health care costs, as shown in a number of recent studies. For instance, research published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports, "Food insecurity, or uncertain access to food because of limited financial resources, is associated with higher health care expenditures."
17
The report identified "substantial variation in state- and county-level health care expenditures associated with food insecurity."
18
The authors of the study suggest, "A multi-level strategy that encompasses both area-level
Series - Hunger: A New Vital Sign," Boston, MA: Children's HealthWatch, 2014, available at https://childrenshealthwatch.org/wpcontent/uploads/FINALPhilly-Food-to-web3.pdf; Bovell, A., Ettinger de Cuba,S., Frank, D., "SNAP: Building a Healthy Foundation Today and Tomorrow," June 22, 2018, available at https://childrenshealthwatch.org/snap-building-a-healthyfoundation-today-and-tomorrow/; and Ettinger de Cuba S, Chilton M, Bovell Ammon A, Knowles M, Coleman SM, Black MM, Cook JT, Cutts DB, Casey PH, Heeren TC, & Frank DA. (2019), Loss of SNAP is SNAP is associated with food insecurity and poor health in working families with young children, Health Affairs, 38(5), 765-773.
15
See Zielinskie, G, Samuel L,J., and Szanton, S., "To Improve Health and Reduce Costs for Low Income Seniors, Invest Upstream," Health Affairs, October 27, 2017, available at https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20171024.786928/full/; and Hartline-Grafton, H., Hunger is a Health Issue for Older Adults: Food Security, Health, and the Federal Nutrition Programs, Food Research & Action Center (2019).
16
See, e.g., Sandel, M., Cutts, D., Meyers, A., Ettinger de Cuba, S., Coleman, S., Black, M. M., Casey, P. H., Chilton, M., Cook, J. T., Shortell, A., Heeren, T., & Frank, D., Co-enrollment for child health: how receipt and loss of food and housing subsidies relate to housing security and statutes for streamlined, multi-subsidy application, 2014, Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 5(2), Article 2; Ettinger de Cuba, S., Weiss, I., Pasquariello, J., Schiffmiller, A., Frank, D. A., Coleman, S., Breen, A., & Cook, J., The SNAP Vaccine: Boosting Children's Health, Children's HealthWatch, 2012; Ettinger de Cuba SA, Bovell-Ammon AR, Cook JT, Coleman SM, Black MM, Chilton MM, Casey PH, Cutts DB, Heeren TC, Sandel MT, Sheward R, & Frank DA., SNAP, young children's health, and family food security and healthcare access, 2019, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 57(4), 525-532.
17
Berkowitz, S.A., Basu, Gundersen, C., Seligman, H.K., "State-Level and County Level Health Care Costs Associated with Food Insecurity, "Preventing Chronic Disease, July 11, 2019, available at https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2019/18_0549.htm
18
Berkowitz, S.A., Basu, Gundersen, C., Seligman, H.K., "State-Level and County Level Health Care Costs Associated with Food Insecurity, "Preventing Chronic Disease, July 11, 2019, available at https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2019/18_0549.htm
7
determinants of food insecurity (e.g. local labor market factors and state earned income tax credits) and hunger safety net programs may improve public health."
19
A 2016 study found that states with higher ratios of social spending-to-health spending had significantly better state-level health outcomes (e.g., adult obesity, asthma, mentally unhealthy days, lung cancer mortality) compared to states with lower ratios.
20
Social spending included spending for SNAP and WIC. The authors concluded that, "our study suggests that broadening the debate beyond what should be spent on health care to include what should be invested in health - not only in health care but also in social services and public health - is warranted." SNAP participation was associated with lower health care spending among low income adults in a national survey.
21
According to one estimate, annual healthcare expenditures averaged $1,409 lower in the case of SNAP participants versus non-participants, and even larger differences occurred among SNAP participants with hypertension or coronary heart disease.
22
Finally, research documents SNAP's positive impact on the mortality rate. Researchers found "evidence that higher SNAP participation reduces the overall mortality rate. Specifically, a one-percentage-point increase in the SNAP participation rate reduces the overall mortality rate by about 6.68 deaths per 100,000 population on average, or by about 0.81 percent of the mean overall mortality rate. These mortality reductions are concentrated most heavily among males, whites, and adults aged 20-64." They also identified "reductions in deaths from major cardiovascular disease and malignant neoplasms as major drivers of these estimated effects, and estimate[d] a significant reduction in suicides in some areas."
23
19
Berkowitz, S.A., Basu, Gundersen, C., Seligman, H.K., "State-Level and County Level Health Care Costs Associated with Food Insecurity, "Preventing Chronic Disease, July 11, 2019, available at https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2019/18_0549.htm
20
Bradley, E. H., Canavan, M., Rogan, E., Talbert-Slagle, K., Ndumele, C., Taylor, L., & Curry, L. A., Variation in health outcomes: the role of spending on social services, public health, and health care, 2000-2009. Health Affairs, 35(5), 760- 768 (2016).
21
Berkowitz, S. A., Seligman, H. K., Rigdon, J., Meigs, J. B., & Basu, S.. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation and health care expenditures among low-income adults. JAMA Internal Medicine, published online ahead of print (2017).
22
Berkowitz, S. A., Seligman, H. K., & Basu, S., Impact of Food Insecurity and SNAP Participation on Healthcare Utilization and Expenditures, University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research Discussion Paper Series. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research (2017); and Berkowitz, S. A., Seligman, H. K., Rigdon, J., Meigs, J. B., & Basu, S., Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation and health care expenditures among low-income adults. JAMA Internal Medicine, published online ahead of print (2017).
23
Courtmanche, C, Gregory, C., Jones, and J., and Marton, J., "The Impacts of SNAP Participation on Mortality Rates," September 2019, available at https://jordanwjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Courtemanche-Gregory-Jones-Marton-2019-The-Impacts-of-SNAP-Participation-on-Mortality-Rates.pdf
8
2.
SNAP Bolsters Economic Well-Being
SNAP bolsters economic activity for individuals, businesses, and communities. A working paper from the Goldman School of Public Policy (University of California, Berkeley) by leading poverty scholars found that access to SNAP in early childhood had positive impacts on economic productivity and well-being in adulthood. Those with access to SNAP in utero and before the age of 5 years old experienced an increase in their human capital, economic self-sufficiency, neighborhood quality, and longevity in adulthood, and a decreased likelihood of being incarcerated. Additional analyses of individual measures of human capital, economic self-sufficiency, and neighborhood quality show that early childhood SNAP access increased educational attainment through college graduation, reduced the likelihood of receiving public assistance in adulthood, and increased the likelihood of homeownership. The findings add to the existing evidence on the long-term benefits of childhood participation in SNAP and other U.S. safety net programs.
24
Studies estimate that $1 of SNAP benefits generates between $1.50 and $1.80 in total economic activity during a recession.
25
USDA's Economic Research Service has reported that new SNAP spending has relatively large effects on manufacturing and trade and transportation sectors. Those sectors include businesses such as food and beverage manufacturers, packaging manufacturers, grocery stores and food and other wholesalers, and trucking and rail freight industries.
26
Other sectors are also impacted, including health and social services and agriculture.
27
SNAP's economic benefits reach not only businesses but the broader community.
28
SNAP dollars help many food retailers operating on thin margins to remain in business, which improves food access
24
Hoynes, H., Bailey, M., Rossin-Slater, M., Walker, R., "Is the Social Safety Net a Long-Term Investment? Large-Scale Evidence from the Food Stamps Program," Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley, April 2019, available at https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research/workingpaper-series/is-the-social-safety-net-a-long-term-investment-5cd06d6b43b4a4.02083762
25
See "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Economy: New Estimates of the SNAP Multiplier, USDA Economic Research Service, July 2019, available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/93529/err-265.pdf?v=8010.7 pages 6-8 and Table 1 (regarding research by Blinder and Zandi)
26
See "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Economy: New Estimates of the SNAP Multiplier, USDA Economic Research Service, July 2019, available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/93529/err-265.pdf?v=8010.7 page 24.
27
See "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Economy: New Estimates of the SNAP Multiplier, USDA Economic Research Service, July 2019, available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/93529/err-265.pdf?v=8010.7 page 25
28
See Gina Plata-Nino, "Part-1 From City Hall to the Dinner Table: How SNAP Cuts Impact Communities," FRAC Chat, FRAC, March 2025. https://frac.org/blog/part-1-from-city-hall-to-the-dinner-table-how-snap-cuts-impact-communities
9
for all residents.
29
Local farmers' markets receive revenue from SNAP purchases, and many also participate in incentive programs that give SNAP shoppers bonuses for buying fruits and vegetables.
30
Indeed, SNAP food assistance is not just for individuals; it is part of "a safety net for the economy [and] a very important stop-gap that keeps the economy going even deeper."
31
Despite SNAP's strengths, inadequate benefit levels undercut the program's positive impacts. The average SNAP benefit is only about $6 per person a day. There is abundant research documenting just how inadequate SNAP benefit amounts are, what that gap in adequacy is costing our nation in terms of health and other outcomes, and what we can do about it.
32
Several expert panels convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recognize SNAP's importance and effectiveness, and the need to boost SNAP benefits to strengthen the program. In addition, the report Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity recommends that "[F]ederal, state, tribal, and territorial policy makers should address the critical gaps between family resources and family needs through a combination of benefits that have the best evidence of advancing health equity, such as increased Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, increased housing assistance, and a basic income allowance for young children."
33
3.
Increasing SNAP's Benefit Adequacy Would Strengthen SNAP's Positive Impacts
Despite SNAP's strengths, inadequate benefit levels undercut the program's positive impacts. The average SNAP benefit is only about $6 per person a day. There is abundant research documenting just how inadequate SNAP benefit amounts are, what that gap in
29
See Gina Plata-Nino, "SNAP Cuts Threaten the Fabric of Rural Communities, Farms, Families, and Small Businesses," FRAC Chat, FRAC, March 2025.
https://frac.org/blog/snap-cuts-threaten-the-fabric-of-rural-communities-farms-families-and-small-businesses; https://frac.org/blog/part-5-when-snap-slips-small-towns-suffer-the-hidden-costs-of-cutting-food-assistance; https://frac.org/blog/part-3-the-real-cost-of-cutting-snap-jobs-lost-stores-closed-communities-undermined
30
Plata-Nino, Gina and Bendict, John. (May 8, 2025). Cutting SNAP: How Harmful Policy Proposals Threaten Communities and Rural Food Systems. FRAC Chat. https://frac.org/blog/part-7-cutting-snap-how-harmful-policy-proposals-threaten-communities-and-rural-food-systems
31
Howard University Professor and AFL-CIO Chief Economist Dr. William Spriggs interview with WHUR, 8/21/19, posted at http://whur.com/whur/recession-2020-is-it-possible
32
Food Research & Action Center. (February 2019). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Initiatives to Make SNAP Benefits More Adequate Significantly Improve Food Security, Nutrition, and Health. https://www.frac.org/wp-content/uploads/snap-initiatives-to-make-snapbenefits-more-adequate.pdf
33
The National Academies Health and Medicine Division, July 25, 2019, available at http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2019/vibrant-and-healthy-kids
10
adequacy is costing our nation in terms of health and other outcomes, and what we can do about it.
34
Several expert panels convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recognize SNAP's importance and effectiveness, and the need to boost benefits to strengthen the program. Reports such as Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity recommend that "[F]ederal, state, tribal, and territorial policy makers should address the critical gaps between family resources and family needs through a combination of benefits that have the best evidence of advancing health equity, such as increased Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, increased housing assistance, and a basic income allowance for young children."
35
III. The Proposed Waiver is Unlawful, Flawed, Ignores Congressional Intent, and Is Arbitrary
Making it harder for SNAP and Summer EBT households to shop and access food moves in the wrong direction and undermines the goal of better outcomes. The waiver also fails to recognize that, in a state with such a high rate of food insecurity, hunger is the worst health outcome.
A.
Congress And USDA Have Historically Opposed Restrictions
Past attempts to limit the types of foods available through SNAP have consistently demonstrated how burdensome and complicated such restrictions can be. For instance, when the 1964 Food Stamp Act proposed food restrictions, the Senate Agriculture Committee rejected the idea because of the significant administrative burden it would impose.
36
Similarly, the 1977 Farm Bill recognized that food restrictions would not address the root causes of food insecurity and would only complicate the program.
37
Since then, the focus has shifted to more effective approaches, such as providing
34
Food Research & Action Center, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Initiatives to Make SNAP Benefits More Adequate Significantly Improve Food Security, Nutrition, and Health," February 2019, available at https://www.frac.org/wp-content/uploads/snap-initiatives-to-make-snapbenefits-more-adequate.pdf; SNAP Emergency Allotments and Public Health Emergency: Addressing the Hunger Cliff - Food Research & Action Center
35
The National Academies Health and Medicine Division, July 25, 2019, available at http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2019/vibrant-and-healthy-kids
36
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Food Stamp Act of 1964: Hearings before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 88th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1
37
Caswell, J. A., & Yaktine, A. L. (2013, April 23).
History, Background, and Goals of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Nih.gov; National Academies Press (US).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206907/
11
produce incentives, as seen in the 2008 Farm Bill. These initiatives encourage healthier food choices without infringing on individuals' autonomy and dignity or increasing states' administrative costs.
USDA has also evaluated food restrictions, including during the first Trump administration, and concluded that limiting SNAP recipients' food choices is both conceptually flawed and impractical.
38
According to USDA, incentive-based approaches, not restrictions, better promote healthier diets during both Republican and Democratic administrations.
39
Providing nutrition education and supporting policies that encourage the purchase of fruits, vegetables, and other healthy options are far more effective than limiting choice. As the USDA Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) found, a pure 30 percent price reduction would increase fruit and vegetable consumption by about 20 percent among SNAP participants.
40
The historical context of waiver denials is important and relevant because it points to thoughtful, rigorous reviews by prior USDA administrations. The denial letters also offer useful critiques of waiver requests that, in theory, should inform projects currently approved or under consideration.
For instance, USDA denied a 2004 waiver request from Minnesota in the state's attempt to prohibit candy and soda purchases with SNAP benefits.
41
In addition to concerns over participant stigma and confusion, USDA concluded that such a waiver would undermine the interoperability of the program across states (since beneficiaries living or working close to state lines may shop in neighboring states) and add administrative challenges regarding the monitoring of retailer compliance. Similarly, USDA denied a 2010 waiver request from New York City that would have restricted the purchase of certain sugar-sweetened beverages with SNAP benefits.
42
According to USDA, the proposed demonstration was too large and complex in scale and scope, had unresolved
38
McGeehan, Patrick. (August 19, 2011). "U.S. Rejects Mayor's Plan to Ban Use of Food Stamps to Buy Soda." The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/nyregion/ban-on-using-food-stamps-to-buy-soda-rejected-by-usda.html
39
Ibid.
40
Bartlett, Susan, Jacob Klerman, Lauren Olsho, et al. Evaluation of the Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP): Final Report. Prepared by Abt Associates for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, September 2014.
41
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2004). Memo to Maria Gomez, Assistant Commissioner, Economic and Community Support Strategies, Minnesota Department of Human Services, from Ollice C. Holden, Regional Administrator, Midwest Region (May 4, 2004).
42
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2011). Memo to Elizabeth Berlin, Executive Deputy Commissioner, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, from Jessica Shahin, Associate Administrator, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (August 19, 2011).
12
operational challenges and complexities, lacked a clear and practical way of determining product eligibility, and included an inadequate evaluation design.
Maine submitted a waiver request that would have restricted sugar-sweetened beverage and candy purchases with SNAP benefits, but the waiver was ultimately denied by USDA in 2016 over concerns about the evaluation design. USDA also outlined the many administrative challenges facing the state's SNAP program (e.g., chronic timeliness, state-caused errors, staffing issues) and concluded that USDA "would need to take these into consideration before agreeing to move forward with such a demanding demonstration project."
43
Maine revised and resubmitted its waiver request in 2017, but the Trump Administration denied it in 2018 because of concerns about administrative costs and burdens for retailers, and because it could set a precedent for individual states to decide their own unique list of foods to restrict.
44
B.
Nebraska's New Request Conflicts With the District Court's Ruling
Nebraska's new request repeats the central approach the U.S. District Court rejected in Aragon v. Rollins.
45
On June 22, 2026, the court vacated USDA's approval of Nebraska's earlier restriction because USDA had relied on 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2026(b) to authorize a project aimed at changing participants' diets.
46
The court held that this provision addresses SNAP's administration and delivery: "Improving the health and diet of SNAP recipients is not included." It explained that Congress addressed health and nutrition pilot projects separately in Sec. 2026(k), which has specific criteria but does not authorize USDA to waive Congress's definition of "food."
47
The court also found that USDA failed to comply with its regulation requiring Federal Register notice for projects likely to have a significant public impact. USDA has now published a notice and invited comments on Nebraska's new request. That step
43
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2016). Memo to Bethany Hamm, SNAP Director, Maine Department of Health and Families, Office of Family Independence, from Andrea Gold, Director, Retailer Policy and Management Division (June 8, 2016).
44
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2018). Memo to Ricker Hamilton, Acting Commissioner, Maine Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner's Office, from Jessica Shahin, Associate Administrator, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (January 16, 2018). Available at: https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/Maine-Denial-Letter-ID-56615.pdf
45
ARAGON v. ROLLINS, 1:26-cv-00861, (D.D.C. Jun 22, 2026) ECF No. 36.
46
U.S. Code, Title 7, Chapter 51. Sec. 2026 -- Research, demonstration, and evaluations. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2026
47
Ibid.
13
addresses the earlier lack of public notice, but it does not resolve the court's separate holding that Sec. 2026(b) cannot authorize this type of food restriction.
The new filing still asks USDA to waive that definition under Sec. 2026(b) so Nebraska can exclude soda, soft drinks, energy drinks, candy, and expand it to Summer EBT. It describes its purpose as making "Nebraska healthy again" and predicts that households will make healthier choices and improve their health. Those objectives are substantially the same as those the court identified in Nebraska's earlier request. Adding candy and mentioning Double Up Food Bucks do not explain how excluding foods from SNAP advances the administrative efficiency or benefit delivery purposes of Sec. 2026(b). USDA should refuse to approve the new request under the same statutory authority the court found insufficient.
C.
Purchase Restrictions Have Inadequate Justification or Safeguards
It is unclear how intensive the USDA reviews were for the 22 approved state waiver requests or the extent to which USDA had additional communication with states during the waiver review process (e.g., asking for clarification). To date, the approval letters posted on the USDA website are similar from state-to-state in terms of structure and content. While USDA can reasonably use a standard template, the approval letters lack state-specific feedback on implementation, communication, and (to some extent) evaluation plans, even though many waiver requests share the same inconsistencies, flaws, and weaknesses as those submitted pre-2025. Overall, this raises concerns that the recent waiver request approval process was rushed and that requests were not properly vetted for their impacts on participants, retailers, and program operations.
USDA also is minimizing federal oversight of approved projects, despite the magnitude and significance of these changes for the nation's largest federal nutrition program. According to the "Terms and Conditions" in USDA's approval letter to states:
FNS is available and willing to provide technical assistance on all components of the Project, including but not limited to communication plans, evaluation strategies, budgets, and a compliance framework. However, all final decisions regarding the development and implementation of the Project materials and plans reside solely with the State. FNS will serve in an advisory capacity and will not provide final approval on Project materials.
14
1.
The Proposed Waiver Would Create Additional Burdens for Summer EBT
The Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (Summer EBT) Program is a proven strategy for reducing food insecurity and improving children's nutrition during the summer months. Nebraska has participated in the program since its launch in 2024. Unlike Nebraska's earlier waiver request, the current proposal expressly extends the purchase restrictions to Summer EBT benefits.
Summer EBT relies on SNAP's electronic benefit infrastructure and therefore would face many of the same implementation challenges created by the proposed restrictions, as well as additional administrative burdens. Because Summer EBT eligibility is generally connected to eligibility for free and reduced-price school meals rather than SNAP participation, some Summer EBT households may not receive SNAP-focused communications about the new restrictions, as they do not participate in SNAP. Nebraska would therefore need a separate and comprehensive outreach strategy for Summer EBT-only households. The state also must include Summer EBT participants in its evaluation of the restrictions' effects on food access, participant understanding, stigma, and purchasing behavior. The request does not adequately explain how Nebraska would conduct this outreach or evaluation, or account for the resulting administrative costs.
Furthermore, restricting food choices for families with low incomes could reinforce the inaccurate and harmful assumption that they are inherently unable to make healthy dietary decisions, further stigmatizing participation in Summer EBT. This stigma, combined with uncertainty about which foods may be purchased, could discourage eligible families from participating. Because Summer EBT is intended to reduce food insecurity among children during the summer months, policies that deter participation risk undermining the program's purpose and increasing summertime food insecurity.
15
2.
Foods and/or Beverages Identified for Restriction
Nebraska's new request, submitted September 1 and revised September 21, 2026, combines its earlier beverage proposal with its later candy proposal. It would prohibit SNAP purchases of soda, soft drinks, and energy drinks beginning December 1, 2026, and candy beginning March 1, 2027. The restrictions would apply statewide to all SNAP households and authorized retailers. Unlike the earlier request, this one also says the restrictions would apply to Summer EBT benefits. USDA is considering the request following a federal court order vacating its approval of Nebraska's earlier demonstration.
The new beverage definitions largely retain the distinctions that made the earlier policy difficult to explain. A sweetened, carbonated lemonade would be restricted, while a comparable noncarbonated lemonade would remain eligible. The candy definition adds further distinctions: it includes certain candy-coated fruit and powdered candy but excludes items such as cookies, pastries, and yogurt with candy pieces. Nebraska does not explain how these classifications advance its stated health goals.
The definitions alone demonstrate how difficult it is to categorize foods and beverages for restriction. In practice, the exceptions and caveats are confusing and often nonsensical from a nutrition standpoint, as a few examples in the table show.
Ineligible for Purchase with SNAP Benefits*
Eligible for Purchase with SNAP Benefits*
Sparkling lemonade
Noncarbonated lemonade
Regular soda or probiotic soda
Real fruit soda, sweetened coffee drinks, and sweetened tea (without stimulants)
Green tea or sparkling water with ginseng or ginger
Plain green tea or water
Flavored sparkling water beverage with artificial sweetener (e.g., Bubly Burst Sparkling Water Beverage)
Flavored sparkling water without artificial sweetener (e.g., Bubly Sparkling Water)
Diet soda with artificial sweetener
Chocolate milk with artificial sweetener
Concentrated liquid or powdered drink mixes to be mixed with carbonated liquid (no stimulants)
Concentrated liquid or powdered drink mixes to be mixed with non-carbonated liquid (no stimulants)
* Based on FRAC's interpretation of the waiver language and supporting materials.
16
These examples show the challenge of categorizing foods and beverages for restriction in SNAP, especially when comparing nutritional content and ingredient lists. For example, one 8.45-ounce can of Trader Joe's Sparkling Lemonade contains 90 calories and 19 grams of added sugar. One 8-ounce serving of Minute Maid Lemonade contains 100 calories and 27 grams of added sugar. The latter, with more calories and added sugar per ounce, is eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits, but the sparkling lemonade is not because it is carbonated. (This information is based on an internet search of these products.)
3.
Lack of Evidence Cited to Justify the Waiver
Nebraska's new request predicts that households will make healthier choices and improve their health, but it provides no evidence that the proposed restrictions will produce those results. It does not explain why SNAP participants should be singled out, why the selected categories reflect a consistent nutrition standard, or how a restriction based partly on carbonation and product form will improve overall dietary intake. The template asks the state to explain how its project would improve SNAP administration and benefit delivery. Nebraska's response describes the work needed to notify participants and retailers; it does not establish those improvements.
The request newly mentions Nebraska's Double Up Food Bucks program, which provides incentives for fruit and vegetable purchases at participating locations. That program may help families afford produce, but its presence does not demonstrate that restricting other purchases will improve nutrition or health. If both efforts operate during the demonstration, Nebraska must also explain how it will distinguish their effects. Research on SNAP purchase restrictions has found limited and mixed results and calls for rigorous evaluation of intended and unintended effects. Nebraska also discusses expanding its work with Double Up Food Bucks, which rewards purchases of fruits and vegetables. That effort may benefit participants, but the request does not explain why adding restrictions would improve its results. USDA approved the demonstration without resolving that central gap in Nebraska's justification.
Evidence-based decision making is critical in public policy; however, Nebraska's justification for the original and additional waiver request was insufficient and, at times, misleading or difficult to follow. While the waiver provided limited research on sugar-sweetened beverages and their connection to poor health, it failed to justify targeting SNAP participants or the specific beverages deemed ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits. For example, how does Nebraska rationalize including noncarbonated lemonade while excluding sparkling lemonade? The waiver also failed to recognize that obesity is a complex chronic disease influenced by multiple factors (e.g., genetics, individual behaviors, environmental factors, pharmaceuticals, stress). Instead, the waiver focused solely on dietary intake.
17
To make matters worse, the waiver misrepresented the available data on SNAP and nutrition. A research brief from the Food Research and Action Center describes the many challenges in studies of SNAP participants' food purchases and dietary intake, including selection bias, misreporting of SNAP participation, and cross-sectional study designs.
48
Unfortunately, those seeking to restrict SNAP purchases often overlook or ignore these challenges, which can lead to misleading conclusions about SNAP usage and its impact on dietary intake. The reality is that the food purchases and dietary intake of SNAP participants are remarkably similar to non-participants.
49,
50
The waiver also stated, without citing any research, that "the diet quality of SNAP families has worsened over the past decade regardless of incentive programs and nutrition education." This statement is inaccurate and misleading for a variety of reasons, but especially because of the documented effectiveness of incentive programs and nutrition education through SNAP-Education (SNAP-Ed).
51, 52, 53
On the other hand, recent research reviews describe the limited, problematic, and mixed findings on SNAP purchasing restrictions and their impacts.
54,
55, 56
According to a commentary in the American Journal of Public Health, "evidence does not support the assertion that
48
Plata-Nino, G. (2025). Challenges in Researching the Diets of SNAP Recipients - Addressing Methodological Flaws and Emphasizing SNAP as an Anti-Hunger Program. Washington, DC: Food Research & Action Center. Available at: https://frac.org/research/resource-library/challenges-researching-diets-snap-research-brief
49
Garasky, S., Mbwana, K., Romualdo, A., Tenaglio, A., & Roy, M. (2016). Foods Typically Purchased by SNAP Households. Prepared by IMPAQ International, LLC for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.
50
Gleason, S., Hansen, D., & Wakar, B. (2021). Indicators of Diet Quality, Nutrition, and Health for Americans by Program Participation Status: SNAP Report. Prepared by Insight Policy Research, Contract No. GS-10F-0136X. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, Project Officer: Michael Burke.
51
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2026). SNAP Healthy Incentives - What Does the Research Say? . Accessed on February 11, 2026. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/healthy-incentives
52
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2025). SNAP: Summary of Science. Available at: https://www.eatrightpro.org/news-center/public-policy-news/snap-summary-of-science
53
Keller, K. J. M., Bruno, P., Foerster, S., & Draper, C. (2024). Thirty years of SNAP-Ed: the transition of the nation's largest nutrition education program into a pillar of the public health infrastructure. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 56(8), 588-596.
54
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2025). SNAP: Summary of Science. Available at: https://www.eatrightpro.org/news-center/public-policy-news/snap-summary-of-science
55
Reed L, Johnson J, Lott M, & Story M. (2025). The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives. Durham, NC: Healthy Eating Research. Available at: https://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/the-current-state-of-knowledge-on-snap-restrictions-and-disincentives/
56
Krobath, D. M., Lawrence, J. A., Chrisinger, B. W., & Cuevas, A. G. (2025). Safeguarding SNAP as an effective antihunger program: myths and potential harms of adding diet quality as a core objective. American Journal of Public Health; 115(1): 37-41.
18
setting nutrition standards for eligible SNAP purchases will improve diet quality or health. On the contrary, evidence suggests that should restrictions be implemented, they may instead produce a paradoxical effect through accumulation of new stressors that exacerbate preventable health disparities."
57
And yet, Nebraska is pursuing, and USDA has approved, this large-scale demonstration.
Nebraska officials conclude the request by suggesting - without citing any research - that the restrictions may improve nutrition, reduce chronic disease, and reduce health care costs. However, SNAP already achieves these goals for participants, which the authors did not acknowledge. There is abundant research demonstrating SNAP's critical role in improving food security, dietary intake, weight outcomes, and health,
58
and in reducing health care costs.
59, 60
According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, "although SNAP is not intended to serve as a dietary health intervention for chronic disease, it plays a vital role in helping participants meet their basic nutritional needs SNAP upholds the dignity, autonomy and personal choice of participants, empowering them to decide how best to nourish themselves and their families."
61
Moreover, the waiver request did not fully account for the potential unintended consequences of restrictions (e.g., program stigma, reduced program participation, increased food insecurity) that could harm participants' mental and physical health and thereby increase health care costs.
62
In fact, recent research reviews describe the limited, problematic, and mixed findings on SNAP purchasing restrictions and their
57
Krobath, D. M., Lawrence, J. A., Chrisinger, B. W., & Cuevas, A. G. (2025). Safeguarding SNAP as an effective antihunger program: myths and potential harms of adding diet quality as a core objective. American Journal of Public Health; 115(1): 37-41.
58
Hartline-Grafton, H. (2013). SNAP and Public Health: The Role of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Improving the Health and Well-Being of Americans. Washington, DC: Food Research & Action Center. Available at: https://frac.org/research/resource-library/snap-public-health-role-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-improving-health-well%e2%80%90being-americans
59
Berkowitz, S. A., Palakshappa, D., Rigdon, J., Seligman, H. K., & Basu, S. (2021). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation and health care use in older adults: a cohort study. Annals of Internal Medicin e, 174(12), 1674-1682.
60
Dillman, L., et al. (2023). The impact of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) enrollment on health and cost outcomes. NEJM Catalyst, 4(6), 17.
61
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2025). SNAP: Summary of Science. Available at: https://www.eatrightpro.org/news-center/public-policy-news/snap-summary-of-science
62
Hartline-Grafton, H. (2017). The Impact of Poverty, Food Insecurity, and Poor Nutrition on Health and Well-Being. Washington, DC: Food Research & Action Center. Available at: https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/hunger-health-impact-poverty-food-insecurity-health-well-being.pdf
19
impacts.
63
64
65
According to one commentary in the American Journal of Public Health, "evidence does not support the assertion that setting nutrition standards for eligible SNAP purchases will improve diet quality or health. On the contrary, evidence suggests that should restrictions be implemented, they may instead produce a paradoxical effect through accumulation of new stressors that exacerbate preventable health disparities."
66
4.
Inadequate Communication Plan
The new request provides more detail about outreach than Nebraska's earlier filing. It describes a website, repeated letters to households, updated interview materials and notices, retailer signage, and additional technical assistance for smaller retailers. Those commitments are useful, but Nebraska says it will submit the fuller communication plan and retailer-readiness dates later. The request does not show how the state will test whether participants and retailers can correctly classify products under both the beverage and candy definitions.
The materials developed for the earlier beverage restriction cannot simply be reused without review. Nebraska needs to explain the new candy rule, the different effective dates, how it applies to Summer EBT, and any changes to how it treats beverages containing herbal extracts. It should also resolve inconsistencies in its existing examples and make product guidance accessible to people who cannot rely on an English-language website or a QR code while shopping. Because retailers must update their own point-of-sale classifications, unclear guidance can produce different results for the same product at different stores. The proposed 90-day retailer compliance period and extra assistance for smaller stores acknowledge implementation difficulty but do not resolve the risk of confusion at checkout.
Nebraska now estimates $760,000 in project costs, including $60,000 for client education and $450,000 for evaluation. The explicit estimate is a substantial change from the earlier expectation that the state could absorb communication costs within
63
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2025). SNAP: Summary of Science. Available at: https://www.eatrightpro.org/news-center/public-policy-news/snap-summary-of-science
64
Reed L, Johnson J, Lott M, & Story M. (2025). The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives. Durham, NC: Healthy Eating Research. Available at: https://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/the-current-state-of-knowledge-on-snap-restrictions-and-disincentives/
65
Krobath, D. M., Lawrence, J. A., Chrisinger, B. W., & Cuevas, A. G. (2025). Safeguarding SNAP as an effective antihunger program: myths and potential harms of adding diet quality as a core objective. American Journal of Public Health; 115(1): 37-41.
66
Krobath, D. M., Lawrence, J. A., Chrisinger, B. W., & Cuevas, A. G. (2025). Safeguarding SNAP as an effective antihunger program: myths and potential harms of adding diet quality as a core objective. American Journal of Public Health; 115(1): 37-41.
20
existing resources. The request does not explain whether its estimate includes the full cost of retailers' system changes, staff training, and ongoing product updates.
5.
Inadequate Evaluation Plan
A rigorous evaluation is essential to determining whether Nebraska's purchase restrictions improve nutrition and health or cause unintended harm. A 2025 brief from Healthy Eating Research (HER) recommends measuring changes in food purchases and consumption, as well as effects on SNAP participation, retailer participation, stigma, costs, and administrative burden. It also recommends consistent measures across states so researchers can compare results.
67
More specifically, HER described the important role of evaluation in SNAP demonstration projects:
SNAP waivers are required, by law, to include an evaluation to determine the effects of the demonstration project. Historically, USDA has required that states seeking SNAP waivers submit rigorous evaluation plans and has denied waiver requests that did not meet their standards. To further the evidence, USDA should maintain its standards for rigorous evaluation plans and require that states evaluate purchases and consumption to assess the impact of SNAP restrictions and/or disincentives on diet quality. Evaluations should also assess potential unintended consequences of restrictions, such as reduced participation in the program among eligible individuals and/or retailers or increased stigma USDA should work with state agencies and their research partners to ensure all are evaluating similar outcomes to allow for comparison of data across states.
HER then outlined multiple topics to evaluate in the demonstration projects, including the following: SNAP participation rates pre- and post-implementation; differential impacts by sociodemographic characteristics; participant experiences (e.g., stigma, stress); participant purchases with SNAP benefits versus personal funds; whether participants cross state borders to make purchases in states without restrictions; substitution decisions; changes in nutrition and health outcomes; federal and state costs; administrative burden and implementation challenges; and SNAP retailer participation. HER also encouraged USDA to compare data across states, reinforcing the importance of standardizing evaluation methodology.
67
Reed L, Johnson J, Lott M, & Story M. (2025). The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives. Durham, NC: Healthy Eating Research. Available at: https://https://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/the-current-state-of-knowledge-on-snap-restrictions-and-disincentives/
21
The current Nebraska waiver falls short of HER's recommendations.
68
An evaluation must determine whether the restrictions produce their claimed benefits and identify harms, including changes in food security, SNAP participation, retailer participation, shopping costs, and stigma.
Nebraska's design faces an additional challenge: its earlier beverage restriction began, was vacated, and would restart if USDA approves this request; candy would begin three months later. The state must explain how it will account for those separate periods and distinguish the effects of each restriction from broader changes over time and from Double Up Food Bucks.
The new request does not provide a study design capable of answering those questions. It identifies surveys and transaction monitoring, but leaves central decisions about sampling, comparison groups, outcome measures, and analysis to a later evaluation plan. Because USDA is still reviewing this request, the evaluation requirements in the approval letter for Nebraska's vacated waiver should not be presented as conditions of a new approval. USDA should assess the sufficiency of the current proposal on its own terms before deciding whether to authorize it.
6.
Inadequate Evaluation Language in Waiver Request
Nebraska says it conducted a survey before the earlier restriction and another after six months, and plans to survey participants every six months. The surveys address knowledge, skills, behavior, and self-reported health-related quality of life. The request does not disclose how respondents were selected, how many participated, whether the same households answered both surveys, or how it will account for nonresponse. It also does not specify a method for measuring dietary intake or determining whether any reported change resulted from the restriction.
The request says Nebraska will continue surveying retailers about implementation and satisfaction and will obtain monthly out-of-state transaction histories. It offers little detail about retailer sampling or how those data will be interpreted. Although it describes channels for collecting complaints, it does not set out a systematic way to measure stigma, food access, or whether participants and retailers leave SNAP. It closes the retailer-evaluation discussion by saying that additional details will appear in a later plan. For a statewide project affecting SNAP and Summer EBT purchases, those details
68
Reed L, Johnson J, Lott M, & Story M. (2025). The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives. Durham, NC: Healthy Eating Research. Available at: https://https://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/the-current-state-of-knowledge-on-snap-restrictions-and-disincentives/
22
are necessary to judge whether the demonstration can answer the questions used to justify it.
IV. Conclusion
Finally, these restrictions are being implemented in the context of devastating cuts to SNAP from H. R. 1. This law expanded harsh time limits, eliminated eligibility for many humanitarian immigrants, reduced SNAP benefits, and defunded SNAP-Education. Public health, medical, nutrition, economic, and legal experts have described how the fallout from H. R. 1 is likely to reduce program participation, exacerbate health disparities, increase food insecurity, contribute to negative nutrition and health outcomes, and undermine SNAP's ability to effectively and quickly respond to unfavorable economic conditions.
69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77
Data show that in the year since the enactment of the law, over 5.5 million people have lost access to SNAP, including 32,726 people in Nebraska.
78
In addition, under H. R. 1, states will be required to cover a greater share of SNAP administrative costs and may be required to share SNAP benefit costs based on payment error rates. Current projections indicate that Nebraska will face an additional $13
69
Nguyen, K. H., Gago, C. M., & de Cuba, S. E. (2026). Eroding the foundation: health and social needs of adult SNAP participants in an era of policy change. Health Affairs Scholar, 4(4), qxag086.
70
Eicher-Miller, H. A., & Gundersen, C. (2026). Concerns for United States food security amid changes in work requirements of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the termination of nutrition education through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 123(6), 101306.
71
Austin, A. E., Ettinger de Cuba, S., Maierhofer, C. N., Naumann, R. B., & Shafer, P. R. (2026). Protecting SNAP as a critical public health intervention. Preventive Medicine, 204, 108518.
72
Bleich, S. N., & Plata-Nino, G. (2026). Changes to SNAP under HR 1 and the implications fo
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FNA-2026-0463-0045
October 30, 2026
Ms. Shiela Corley
Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Administration
United States Department of Agriculture
Re: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State of Nebraska Demonstration Project (Docket Number FNA-2026-0463)
Dear Ms. Corley:
On behalf of the Food Research & Action Center, please accept these comments on the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food and Nutrition ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 30, 2026 Ms. Shiela Corley Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Administration United States Department of Agriculture Re: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State of Nebraska Demonstration Project (Docket Number FNA-2026-0463) Dear Ms. Corley: On behalf of the Food Research & Action Center, please accept these comments on the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food and NutritionAdministration (FNA) request for public comment on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State of Nebraska Demonstration Project.
FRAC is the leading national nonprofit organization working to improve public policies and public-private partnerships to eradicate poverty-related hunger and undernutrition in the United States. FRAC works with hundreds of national, state, and local nonprofit organizations, public agencies, corporations, and labor organizations to address hunger, food insecurity, and their root cause, poverty. FRAC uses data and evidence to analyze trends in food insecurity and the impacts of national programs to address hunger and nutrition.
Nebraska's proposed demonstration project to restrict purchases through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (Summer EBT) program raises serious questions about statutory authority, feasibility, cost, and its effects on families and retailers. We support efforts to improve nutrition and health, but the state has not shown that this approach will achieve those goals or adequately addressed how it would be implemented and evaluated.
The restrictions would increase the state's administrative workload and impose new costs on retailers, particularly small, rural stores. If retailers cannot absorb those costs or continue accepting SNAP, participants could have fewer places to buy food. The restrictions could also increase stigma and make it harder for families to meet their basic needs.
2
SNAP helps alleviate poverty, reduce food insecurity, and improve nutrition and health.
1
SNAP currently helps more than 116,000 Nebraska residents.
2
Of the households served in FY 24, 36 percent included children, 27 percent included older adults, 18 percent included non-elderly adults with a disability, and 45 percent included elderly people with disabilities.
3
Eight percent of Nebraskans participated in SNAP. Participation rates were one in 14 residents in rural areas, one in 11 in small towns, and one in 13 in metropolitan areas.
4
Additionally, Summer EBT reached over 200,000 children across the state in 2024, its inaugural year.
5
Given both programs' reach, Nebraska should ground any proposed change in sound evidence, meaningful community input, a lawful basis, and a credible evaluation of its costs and effects. Because this proposal does not meet those standards, we respectfully urge USDA to withdraw the waiver.
I. The Waiver's Harmful Impacts on the Economy, Including Retailers and State and Local Revenues
Nebraska's demonstration project restricts allowable food purchases in ways that could seriously and far-reaching harm not only for SNAP and Summer EBT participants but also Nebraska's economy, retailers, and the state agency.
1.
Threat to Small and Rural Retailers
Many independently owned grocery and convenience stores-particularly those in rural or low-income areas-lack the IT infrastructure or financial reserves needed to comply with these mandates. For convenience stores, SNAP transactions often make up a small share of total sales. If participating in the program becomes too costly or burdensome, many may simply opt out.
This would be catastrophic in food desert communities, where convenience stores are often the only nearby source of groceries. Fewer SNAP-authorized retailers would severely reduce food access in small towns and underserved urban areas, especially for families without reliable transportation. A recent study found that food restriction
1
Hartline-Grafton, H., & Plata-Nino, G. (2026).
SNAP: An Evidence-Based Program to Improve Food Security, Health, and Well-Being
. Food Research & Action Center.
https://frac.org/research/resource-library/snap-evidence-based-program
2
Food Research & Action Center. SNAP Participation Dashboard. https://frac.org/snap-participation-data-january-2025-present
3
USDA. (September 2026). Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Households: Fiscal Year 2024. https://www.fna.usda.gov/research/snap/characteristics-fy24
4
Food Research & Action Center. (May 2025). Protect SNAP to Reduce Hunger and Strengthen Local Economies in Nebraska. https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/SNAP_FactSheets_022525_NE28.pdf
5
Nebraska Appleseed. (April 2025). Nebraska Summer EBT 2025 is here. https://neappleseed.org/48942
3
waiver implementation in other states was associated with a 1.4 percent decline in SNAP-authorized convenience stores, or 3.0 fewer stores per 100 tracts.
6
2.
Economic Ripple Effects
SNAP supports food access and local businesses throughout Nebraska. In fiscal year 2025 , the program brought $328,247,275 of federal dollars to the state.
7
Fewer participating retailers would mean fewer SNAP dollars circulating in communities, reducing revenue for small businesses and lowering state and local sales tax collections. These ripple effects would compound economic insecurity, particularly in already vulnerable communities.
Retailers choose whether to participate in SNAP, but that choice does not eliminate the need to assess how the demonstration would affect the retail network. New costs and operational demands could lead some stores, particularly smaller retailers, to leave the program. Participants would then have fewer places to use their benefits, especially in areas with limited food shopping options.
8
A 2025 study found an association between greater access to SNAP-authorized retailers-particularly grocery stores and superstores-and better dietary quality among participants.
9
The authors of that study concluded, "these findings highlight the potential impact of food access on diet quality, and suggest that improving the availability of SNAP-authorized retailers in low-access areas may be an important strategy for enhancing public health and reducing diet-related conditions."
Nebraska should evaluate whether retailers can implement the restrictions and remain in SNAP, how any loss of retailers would affect food access, and whether reduced participation would affect local businesses.
3.
Risks to Customer Dignity and Retailer Roles
These restrictions also fundamentally alter the customer experience. Grocery clerks, many of whom are low-wage workers themselves, must act as "food police," monitoring
6
Benjamin W Chrisinger, Justin S White, SNAP Food Purchase Restrictions and Retailer Availability: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis,
Health Affairs Scholar
, 2026;, qxag275,
https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag275
7
USDA, SNAP Data Tables.
https://www.fna.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
8
Reed L, Johnson J, Lott M, & Story M. (2025).
The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives
. Durham, NC: Healthy Eating Research. Available at: https://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/the-current-state-of-knowledge-on-snap-restrictions-and-disincentives/
9
Li, Q., & Zhao, S. (2025). Access to SNAP-authorized retailers and diet quality among SNAP recipients. JAMA Health Forum, 6(4), e250677. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.0677
4
customers and potentially confronting them about what they can and cannot purchase.
This creates unnecessary conflict at checkout and undermines families' dignity and autonomy in deciding how to feed their households.
A recent non-peer-reviewed review of current SNAP restrictions found that they significantly increased both treatment stigma-such as recipients feeling judged when using SNAP benefits to shop-and identity stigma, including feeling disrespected or restricted by SNAP policies. Recipients were more likely to report feeling judged when paying for groceries with SNAP benefits and to view state SNAP policies as disrespectful and limiting their freedom.
10
4.
Reduced Flexibility During Emergencies
SNAP's flexibility has long been one of its strengths. During supply chain shortages, natural disasters, or declared emergencies, broad access to food choices lets families adapt to changing availability. Introducing rigid purchase restrictions would tie the program's hands in times of crisis, reducing its responsiveness and harming both participants and taxpayers.
This waiver fails to achieve its intended goals; instead, it increases hardship, reduces access to food, strains administrative systems, and damages local economies. It harms participants, retailers, and state infrastructure alike. Nebraska needs policies that enhance food access and support community resilience, not measures that create barriers and drive essential retailers out of the SNAP program.
II. SNAP's Purpose and Positive Impacts
A.
SNAP's Statutory Purpose
SNAP's statutory purpose, as declared by Congress, is "to promote the general welfare, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households. Congress finds that the limited food purchasing power of low-income households contributes to hunger and malnutrition among members of such households. Congress further finds that increased utilization of food in establishing and maintaining adequate national levels of nutrition will promote the distribution in a beneficial manner of the Nation's agricultural abundance and will strengthen the Nation's agricultural economy, as well as result in more orderly
10
Allcott et al. (2026).
The effects of SNAP sugary drink restrictions on consumption and welfare
. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w35659/w35659.pdf
5
marketing and distribution of foods. To alleviate such hunger and malnutrition, a supplemental nutrition assistance program is herein authorized which will permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for participation."
11
B.
SNAP's Positive Impacts
SNAP plays a critical role in addressing hunger and food insecurity in our communities across the nation, including Nebraska's. It is the first line of defense against hunger for low-income residents
1.
SNAP Promotes Food Security and Health
SNAP plays a critical role in improving the food security, health, and well-being of program participants across the lifespan.
12
For example, SNAP participation has been associated with improvements in overall adult and child health, birth outcomes, and diabetes management, as well as reductions in cost-related medication nonadherence, metabolic syndrome, child obesity, depressive symptoms, and psychological distress.
13
Conversely, research shows that a loss or reduction in SNAP benefits has detrimental impacts on food insecurity and health, especially for children and their families.
14
11
7 USC 2011: Congressional declaration of policy
. (2024). House.gov.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-2000-title7-section2011&num=0&edition=2000
12
Hartline-Grafton, H., SNAP and Public Health: The Role of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Improving the Health and Well-Being of Americans, Food Research & Action Center (2013).
13
See, e.g., Gregory, C. A., & Deb, P. (2015). Does SNAP improve your health? Food Policy, 50, 11-19; Sheward, R., Ettinger de Cuba, S., Cook, J., Pasquariello, J., & Coleman, S. (2014). RX for Healthy Child Development: Nutritious, Affordable Food Promotes Health and Economic Stability for Boston Families. Series - Hunger: A New Vital Sign. Boston, MA: Children's HealthWatch; Kreider, B., Pepper, J. V., Gundersen, C., & Jolliffe, D. (2012). Identifying the effects of SNAP (Food Stamps) on child health outcomes when participation is endogenous and misreported. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 107(499), 958-975; Almond, D., Hoynes, H. W., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2011). Inside the War on Poverty: the impact of food stamps on birth outcomes. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2), 387-403; Mayer, V. L., McDonough, K., Seligman, H., Mitra, N., & Long, J. A. (2016). Food insecurity, coping strategies and glucose control in low-income patients with diabetes. Public Health Nutrition, 19(6), 1103-1111; Srinivasan, M., & Pooler, J. A. (2018). Cost-related medication nonadherence for older adults participating in SNAP, 2013-2015. American Journal of Public Health, 108(2), 224-230; and Hoynes, H., Schanzenbach, D. W., & Almond, D. (2016). Long-run impacts of childhood access to the safety net. American Economic Review, 106(4), 903-934.
14
See e.g., Ettinger de Cuba, S., Harker, L., Weiss, I., Scully, K., Chilton, M., & Coleman, S., "Punishing Hard Work: The Unintended Consequences of Cutting SNAP Benefits," Boston, MA: Children's HealthWatch, 2013, available at https://childrenshealthwatch.org/wpcontent/uploads/cliffeffect_report_dec2013.pdf; Bovell, A., Ettinger de Cuba, S., Scully, K., Chilton, M., & Coleman, S., "Making SNAP Work for Families Leaving Poverty.
6
SNAP plays an important role in supporting the food security, nutrition, and health of older adults, allowing them to maintain their independence while also reducing their health care utilization and costs.
15
People with disabilities are at higher risk of food insecurity, making SNAP a critical support for this vulnerable population as well. Furthermore, those impacted by food insecurity are likely experiencing additional resource-related hardships, such as housing instability and energy insecurity.
An emerging body of evidence demonstrates that SNAP supports housing stability and alleviates the trade-offs that families often are forced to make between food, health care, and other basic necessities.
16
SNAP's positive impacts on health extend to reductions in health care costs, as shown in a number of recent studies. For instance, research published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports, "Food insecurity, or uncertain access to food because of limited financial resources, is associated with higher health care expenditures."
17
The report identified "substantial variation in state- and county-level health care expenditures associated with food insecurity."
18
The authors of the study suggest, "A multi-level strategy that encompasses both area-level
Series - Hunger: A New Vital Sign," Boston, MA: Children's HealthWatch, 2014, available at https://childrenshealthwatch.org/wpcontent/uploads/FINALPhilly-Food-to-web3.pdf; Bovell, A., Ettinger de Cuba,S., Frank, D., "SNAP: Building a Healthy Foundation Today and Tomorrow," June 22, 2018, available at https://childrenshealthwatch.org/snap-building-a-healthyfoundation-today-and-tomorrow/; and Ettinger de Cuba S, Chilton M, Bovell Ammon A, Knowles M, Coleman SM, Black MM, Cook JT, Cutts DB, Casey PH, Heeren TC, & Frank DA. (2019), Loss of SNAP is SNAP is associated with food insecurity and poor health in working families with young children, Health Affairs, 38(5), 765-773.
15
See Zielinskie, G, Samuel L,J., and Szanton, S., "To Improve Health and Reduce Costs for Low Income Seniors, Invest Upstream," Health Affairs, October 27, 2017, available at https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20171024.786928/full/; and Hartline-Grafton, H., Hunger is a Health Issue for Older Adults: Food Security, Health, and the Federal Nutrition Programs, Food Research & Action Center (2019).
16
See, e.g., Sandel, M., Cutts, D., Meyers, A., Ettinger de Cuba, S., Coleman, S., Black, M. M., Casey, P. H., Chilton, M., Cook, J. T., Shortell, A., Heeren, T., & Frank, D., Co-enrollment for child health: how receipt and loss of food and housing subsidies relate to housing security and statutes for streamlined, multi-subsidy application, 2014, Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 5(2), Article 2; Ettinger de Cuba, S., Weiss, I., Pasquariello, J., Schiffmiller, A., Frank, D. A., Coleman, S., Breen, A., & Cook, J., The SNAP Vaccine: Boosting Children's Health, Children's HealthWatch, 2012; Ettinger de Cuba SA, Bovell-Ammon AR, Cook JT, Coleman SM, Black MM, Chilton MM, Casey PH, Cutts DB, Heeren TC, Sandel MT, Sheward R, & Frank DA., SNAP, young children's health, and family food security and healthcare access, 2019, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 57(4), 525-532.
17
Berkowitz, S.A., Basu, Gundersen, C., Seligman, H.K., "State-Level and County Level Health Care Costs Associated with Food Insecurity, "Preventing Chronic Disease, July 11, 2019, available at https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2019/18_0549.htm
18
Berkowitz, S.A., Basu, Gundersen, C., Seligman, H.K., "State-Level and County Level Health Care Costs Associated with Food Insecurity, "Preventing Chronic Disease, July 11, 2019, available at https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2019/18_0549.htm
7
determinants of food insecurity (e.g. local labor market factors and state earned income tax credits) and hunger safety net programs may improve public health."
19
A 2016 study found that states with higher ratios of social spending-to-health spending had significantly better state-level health outcomes (e.g., adult obesity, asthma, mentally unhealthy days, lung cancer mortality) compared to states with lower ratios.
20
Social spending included spending for SNAP and WIC. The authors concluded that, "our study suggests that broadening the debate beyond what should be spent on health care to include what should be invested in health - not only in health care but also in social services and public health - is warranted." SNAP participation was associated with lower health care spending among low income adults in a national survey.
21
According to one estimate, annual healthcare expenditures averaged $1,409 lower in the case of SNAP participants versus non-participants, and even larger differences occurred among SNAP participants with hypertension or coronary heart disease.
22
Finally, research documents SNAP's positive impact on the mortality rate. Researchers found "evidence that higher SNAP participation reduces the overall mortality rate. Specifically, a one-percentage-point increase in the SNAP participation rate reduces the overall mortality rate by about 6.68 deaths per 100,000 population on average, or by about 0.81 percent of the mean overall mortality rate. These mortality reductions are concentrated most heavily among males, whites, and adults aged 20-64." They also identified "reductions in deaths from major cardiovascular disease and malignant neoplasms as major drivers of these estimated effects, and estimate[d] a significant reduction in suicides in some areas."
23
19
Berkowitz, S.A., Basu, Gundersen, C., Seligman, H.K., "State-Level and County Level Health Care Costs Associated with Food Insecurity, "Preventing Chronic Disease, July 11, 2019, available at https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2019/18_0549.htm
20
Bradley, E. H., Canavan, M., Rogan, E., Talbert-Slagle, K., Ndumele, C., Taylor, L., & Curry, L. A., Variation in health outcomes: the role of spending on social services, public health, and health care, 2000-2009. Health Affairs, 35(5), 760- 768 (2016).
21
Berkowitz, S. A., Seligman, H. K., Rigdon, J., Meigs, J. B., & Basu, S.. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation and health care expenditures among low-income adults. JAMA Internal Medicine, published online ahead of print (2017).
22
Berkowitz, S. A., Seligman, H. K., & Basu, S., Impact of Food Insecurity and SNAP Participation on Healthcare Utilization and Expenditures, University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research Discussion Paper Series. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research (2017); and Berkowitz, S. A., Seligman, H. K., Rigdon, J., Meigs, J. B., & Basu, S., Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation and health care expenditures among low-income adults. JAMA Internal Medicine, published online ahead of print (2017).
23
Courtmanche, C, Gregory, C., Jones, and J., and Marton, J., "The Impacts of SNAP Participation on Mortality Rates," September 2019, available at https://jordanwjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Courtemanche-Gregory-Jones-Marton-2019-The-Impacts-of-SNAP-Participation-on-Mortality-Rates.pdf
8
2.
SNAP Bolsters Economic Well-Being
SNAP bolsters economic activity for individuals, businesses, and communities. A working paper from the Goldman School of Public Policy (University of California, Berkeley) by leading poverty scholars found that access to SNAP in early childhood had positive impacts on economic productivity and well-being in adulthood. Those with access to SNAP in utero and before the age of 5 years old experienced an increase in their human capital, economic self-sufficiency, neighborhood quality, and longevity in adulthood, and a decreased likelihood of being incarcerated. Additional analyses of individual measures of human capital, economic self-sufficiency, and neighborhood quality show that early childhood SNAP access increased educational attainment through college graduation, reduced the likelihood of receiving public assistance in adulthood, and increased the likelihood of homeownership. The findings add to the existing evidence on the long-term benefits of childhood participation in SNAP and other U.S. safety net programs.
24
Studies estimate that $1 of SNAP benefits generates between $1.50 and $1.80 in total economic activity during a recession.
25
USDA's Economic Research Service has reported that new SNAP spending has relatively large effects on manufacturing and trade and transportation sectors. Those sectors include businesses such as food and beverage manufacturers, packaging manufacturers, grocery stores and food and other wholesalers, and trucking and rail freight industries.
26
Other sectors are also impacted, including health and social services and agriculture.
27
SNAP's economic benefits reach not only businesses but the broader community.
28
SNAP dollars help many food retailers operating on thin margins to remain in business, which improves food access
24
Hoynes, H., Bailey, M., Rossin-Slater, M., Walker, R., "Is the Social Safety Net a Long-Term Investment? Large-Scale Evidence from the Food Stamps Program," Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley, April 2019, available at https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research/workingpaper-series/is-the-social-safety-net-a-long-term-investment-5cd06d6b43b4a4.02083762
25
See "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Economy: New Estimates of the SNAP Multiplier, USDA Economic Research Service, July 2019, available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/93529/err-265.pdf?v=8010.7 pages 6-8 and Table 1 (regarding research by Blinder and Zandi)
26
See "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Economy: New Estimates of the SNAP Multiplier, USDA Economic Research Service, July 2019, available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/93529/err-265.pdf?v=8010.7 page 24.
27
See "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Economy: New Estimates of the SNAP Multiplier, USDA Economic Research Service, July 2019, available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/93529/err-265.pdf?v=8010.7 page 25
28
See Gina Plata-Nino, "Part-1 From City Hall to the Dinner Table: How SNAP Cuts Impact Communities," FRAC Chat, FRAC, March 2025. https://frac.org/blog/part-1-from-city-hall-to-the-dinner-table-how-snap-cuts-impact-communities
9
for all residents.
29
Local farmers' markets receive revenue from SNAP purchases, and many also participate in incentive programs that give SNAP shoppers bonuses for buying fruits and vegetables.
30
Indeed, SNAP food assistance is not just for individuals; it is part of "a safety net for the economy [and] a very important stop-gap that keeps the economy going even deeper."
31
Despite SNAP's strengths, inadequate benefit levels undercut the program's positive impacts. The average SNAP benefit is only about $6 per person a day. There is abundant research documenting just how inadequate SNAP benefit amounts are, what that gap in adequacy is costing our nation in terms of health and other outcomes, and what we can do about it.
32
Several expert panels convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recognize SNAP's importance and effectiveness, and the need to boost SNAP benefits to strengthen the program. In addition, the report Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity recommends that "[F]ederal, state, tribal, and territorial policy makers should address the critical gaps between family resources and family needs through a combination of benefits that have the best evidence of advancing health equity, such as increased Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, increased housing assistance, and a basic income allowance for young children."
33
3.
Increasing SNAP's Benefit Adequacy Would Strengthen SNAP's Positive Impacts
Despite SNAP's strengths, inadequate benefit levels undercut the program's positive impacts. The average SNAP benefit is only about $6 per person a day. There is abundant research documenting just how inadequate SNAP benefit amounts are, what that gap in
29
See Gina Plata-Nino, "SNAP Cuts Threaten the Fabric of Rural Communities, Farms, Families, and Small Businesses," FRAC Chat, FRAC, March 2025.
https://frac.org/blog/snap-cuts-threaten-the-fabric-of-rural-communities-farms-families-and-small-businesses; https://frac.org/blog/part-5-when-snap-slips-small-towns-suffer-the-hidden-costs-of-cutting-food-assistance; https://frac.org/blog/part-3-the-real-cost-of-cutting-snap-jobs-lost-stores-closed-communities-undermined
30
Plata-Nino, Gina and Bendict, John. (May 8, 2025). Cutting SNAP: How Harmful Policy Proposals Threaten Communities and Rural Food Systems. FRAC Chat. https://frac.org/blog/part-7-cutting-snap-how-harmful-policy-proposals-threaten-communities-and-rural-food-systems
31
Howard University Professor and AFL-CIO Chief Economist Dr. William Spriggs interview with WHUR, 8/21/19, posted at http://whur.com/whur/recession-2020-is-it-possible
32
Food Research & Action Center. (February 2019). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Initiatives to Make SNAP Benefits More Adequate Significantly Improve Food Security, Nutrition, and Health. https://www.frac.org/wp-content/uploads/snap-initiatives-to-make-snapbenefits-more-adequate.pdf
33
The National Academies Health and Medicine Division, July 25, 2019, available at http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2019/vibrant-and-healthy-kids
10
adequacy is costing our nation in terms of health and other outcomes, and what we can do about it.
34
Several expert panels convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recognize SNAP's importance and effectiveness, and the need to boost benefits to strengthen the program. Reports such as Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity recommend that "[F]ederal, state, tribal, and territorial policy makers should address the critical gaps between family resources and family needs through a combination of benefits that have the best evidence of advancing health equity, such as increased Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, increased housing assistance, and a basic income allowance for young children."
35
III. The Proposed Waiver is Unlawful, Flawed, Ignores Congressional Intent, and Is Arbitrary
Making it harder for SNAP and Summer EBT households to shop and access food moves in the wrong direction and undermines the goal of better outcomes. The waiver also fails to recognize that, in a state with such a high rate of food insecurity, hunger is the worst health outcome.
A.
Congress And USDA Have Historically Opposed Restrictions
Past attempts to limit the types of foods available through SNAP have consistently demonstrated how burdensome and complicated such restrictions can be. For instance, when the 1964 Food Stamp Act proposed food restrictions, the Senate Agriculture Committee rejected the idea because of the significant administrative burden it would impose.
36
Similarly, the 1977 Farm Bill recognized that food restrictions would not address the root causes of food insecurity and would only complicate the program.
37
Since then, the focus has shifted to more effective approaches, such as providing
34
Food Research & Action Center, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Initiatives to Make SNAP Benefits More Adequate Significantly Improve Food Security, Nutrition, and Health," February 2019, available at https://www.frac.org/wp-content/uploads/snap-initiatives-to-make-snapbenefits-more-adequate.pdf; SNAP Emergency Allotments and Public Health Emergency: Addressing the Hunger Cliff - Food Research & Action Center
35
The National Academies Health and Medicine Division, July 25, 2019, available at http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2019/vibrant-and-healthy-kids
36
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Food Stamp Act of 1964: Hearings before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 88th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1
37
Caswell, J. A., & Yaktine, A. L. (2013, April 23).
History, Background, and Goals of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Nih.gov; National Academies Press (US).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206907/
11
produce incentives, as seen in the 2008 Farm Bill. These initiatives encourage healthier food choices without infringing on individuals' autonomy and dignity or increasing states' administrative costs.
USDA has also evaluated food restrictions, including during the first Trump administration, and concluded that limiting SNAP recipients' food choices is both conceptually flawed and impractical.
38
According to USDA, incentive-based approaches, not restrictions, better promote healthier diets during both Republican and Democratic administrations.
39
Providing nutrition education and supporting policies that encourage the purchase of fruits, vegetables, and other healthy options are far more effective than limiting choice. As the USDA Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) found, a pure 30 percent price reduction would increase fruit and vegetable consumption by about 20 percent among SNAP participants.
40
The historical context of waiver denials is important and relevant because it points to thoughtful, rigorous reviews by prior USDA administrations. The denial letters also offer useful critiques of waiver requests that, in theory, should inform projects currently approved or under consideration.
For instance, USDA denied a 2004 waiver request from Minnesota in the state's attempt to prohibit candy and soda purchases with SNAP benefits.
41
In addition to concerns over participant stigma and confusion, USDA concluded that such a waiver would undermine the interoperability of the program across states (since beneficiaries living or working close to state lines may shop in neighboring states) and add administrative challenges regarding the monitoring of retailer compliance. Similarly, USDA denied a 2010 waiver request from New York City that would have restricted the purchase of certain sugar-sweetened beverages with SNAP benefits.
42
According to USDA, the proposed demonstration was too large and complex in scale and scope, had unresolved
38
McGeehan, Patrick. (August 19, 2011). "U.S. Rejects Mayor's Plan to Ban Use of Food Stamps to Buy Soda." The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/nyregion/ban-on-using-food-stamps-to-buy-soda-rejected-by-usda.html
39
Ibid.
40
Bartlett, Susan, Jacob Klerman, Lauren Olsho, et al. Evaluation of the Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP): Final Report. Prepared by Abt Associates for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, September 2014.
41
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2004). Memo to Maria Gomez, Assistant Commissioner, Economic and Community Support Strategies, Minnesota Department of Human Services, from Ollice C. Holden, Regional Administrator, Midwest Region (May 4, 2004).
42
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2011). Memo to Elizabeth Berlin, Executive Deputy Commissioner, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, from Jessica Shahin, Associate Administrator, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (August 19, 2011).
12
operational challenges and complexities, lacked a clear and practical way of determining product eligibility, and included an inadequate evaluation design.
Maine submitted a waiver request that would have restricted sugar-sweetened beverage and candy purchases with SNAP benefits, but the waiver was ultimately denied by USDA in 2016 over concerns about the evaluation design. USDA also outlined the many administrative challenges facing the state's SNAP program (e.g., chronic timeliness, state-caused errors, staffing issues) and concluded that USDA "would need to take these into consideration before agreeing to move forward with such a demanding demonstration project."
43
Maine revised and resubmitted its waiver request in 2017, but the Trump Administration denied it in 2018 because of concerns about administrative costs and burdens for retailers, and because it could set a precedent for individual states to decide their own unique list of foods to restrict.
44
B.
Nebraska's New Request Conflicts With the District Court's Ruling
Nebraska's new request repeats the central approach the U.S. District Court rejected in Aragon v. Rollins.
45
On June 22, 2026, the court vacated USDA's approval of Nebraska's earlier restriction because USDA had relied on 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2026(b) to authorize a project aimed at changing participants' diets.
46
The court held that this provision addresses SNAP's administration and delivery: "Improving the health and diet of SNAP recipients is not included." It explained that Congress addressed health and nutrition pilot projects separately in Sec. 2026(k), which has specific criteria but does not authorize USDA to waive Congress's definition of "food."
47
The court also found that USDA failed to comply with its regulation requiring Federal Register notice for projects likely to have a significant public impact. USDA has now published a notice and invited comments on Nebraska's new request. That step
43
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2016). Memo to Bethany Hamm, SNAP Director, Maine Department of Health and Families, Office of Family Independence, from Andrea Gold, Director, Retailer Policy and Management Division (June 8, 2016).
44
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2018). Memo to Ricker Hamilton, Acting Commissioner, Maine Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner's Office, from Jessica Shahin, Associate Administrator, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (January 16, 2018). Available at: https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/Maine-Denial-Letter-ID-56615.pdf
45
ARAGON v. ROLLINS, 1:26-cv-00861, (D.D.C. Jun 22, 2026) ECF No. 36.
46
U.S. Code, Title 7, Chapter 51. Sec. 2026 -- Research, demonstration, and evaluations. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2026
47
Ibid.
13
addresses the earlier lack of public notice, but it does not resolve the court's separate holding that Sec. 2026(b) cannot authorize this type of food restriction.
The new filing still asks USDA to waive that definition under Sec. 2026(b) so Nebraska can exclude soda, soft drinks, energy drinks, candy, and expand it to Summer EBT. It describes its purpose as making "Nebraska healthy again" and predicts that households will make healthier choices and improve their health. Those objectives are substantially the same as those the court identified in Nebraska's earlier request. Adding candy and mentioning Double Up Food Bucks do not explain how excluding foods from SNAP advances the administrative efficiency or benefit delivery purposes of Sec. 2026(b). USDA should refuse to approve the new request under the same statutory authority the court found insufficient.
C.
Purchase Restrictions Have Inadequate Justification or Safeguards
It is unclear how intensive the USDA reviews were for the 22 approved state waiver requests or the extent to which USDA had additional communication with states during the waiver review process (e.g., asking for clarification). To date, the approval letters posted on the USDA website are similar from state-to-state in terms of structure and content. While USDA can reasonably use a standard template, the approval letters lack state-specific feedback on implementation, communication, and (to some extent) evaluation plans, even though many waiver requests share the same inconsistencies, flaws, and weaknesses as those submitted pre-2025. Overall, this raises concerns that the recent waiver request approval process was rushed and that requests were not properly vetted for their impacts on participants, retailers, and program operations.
USDA also is minimizing federal oversight of approved projects, despite the magnitude and significance of these changes for the nation's largest federal nutrition program. According to the "Terms and Conditions" in USDA's approval letter to states:
FNS is available and willing to provide technical assistance on all components of the Project, including but not limited to communication plans, evaluation strategies, budgets, and a compliance framework. However, all final decisions regarding the development and implementation of the Project materials and plans reside solely with the State. FNS will serve in an advisory capacity and will not provide final approval on Project materials.
14
1.
The Proposed Waiver Would Create Additional Burdens for Summer EBT
The Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (Summer EBT) Program is a proven strategy for reducing food insecurity and improving children's nutrition during the summer months. Nebraska has participated in the program since its launch in 2024. Unlike Nebraska's earlier waiver request, the current proposal expressly extends the purchase restrictions to Summer EBT benefits.
Summer EBT relies on SNAP's electronic benefit infrastructure and therefore would face many of the same implementation challenges created by the proposed restrictions, as well as additional administrative burdens. Because Summer EBT eligibility is generally connected to eligibility for free and reduced-price school meals rather than SNAP participation, some Summer EBT households may not receive SNAP-focused communications about the new restrictions, as they do not participate in SNAP. Nebraska would therefore need a separate and comprehensive outreach strategy for Summer EBT-only households. The state also must include Summer EBT participants in its evaluation of the restrictions' effects on food access, participant understanding, stigma, and purchasing behavior. The request does not adequately explain how Nebraska would conduct this outreach or evaluation, or account for the resulting administrative costs.
Furthermore, restricting food choices for families with low incomes could reinforce the inaccurate and harmful assumption that they are inherently unable to make healthy dietary decisions, further stigmatizing participation in Summer EBT. This stigma, combined with uncertainty about which foods may be purchased, could discourage eligible families from participating. Because Summer EBT is intended to reduce food insecurity among children during the summer months, policies that deter participation risk undermining the program's purpose and increasing summertime food insecurity.
15
2.
Foods and/or Beverages Identified for Restriction
Nebraska's new request, submitted September 1 and revised September 21, 2026, combines its earlier beverage proposal with its later candy proposal. It would prohibit SNAP purchases of soda, soft drinks, and energy drinks beginning December 1, 2026, and candy beginning March 1, 2027. The restrictions would apply statewide to all SNAP households and authorized retailers. Unlike the earlier request, this one also says the restrictions would apply to Summer EBT benefits. USDA is considering the request following a federal court order vacating its approval of Nebraska's earlier demonstration.
The new beverage definitions largely retain the distinctions that made the earlier policy difficult to explain. A sweetened, carbonated lemonade would be restricted, while a comparable noncarbonated lemonade would remain eligible. The candy definition adds further distinctions: it includes certain candy-coated fruit and powdered candy but excludes items such as cookies, pastries, and yogurt with candy pieces. Nebraska does not explain how these classifications advance its stated health goals.
The definitions alone demonstrate how difficult it is to categorize foods and beverages for restriction. In practice, the exceptions and caveats are confusing and often nonsensical from a nutrition standpoint, as a few examples in the table show.
Ineligible for Purchase with SNAP Benefits*
Eligible for Purchase with SNAP Benefits*
Sparkling lemonade
Noncarbonated lemonade
Regular soda or probiotic soda
Real fruit soda, sweetened coffee drinks, and sweetened tea (without stimulants)
Green tea or sparkling water with ginseng or ginger
Plain green tea or water
Flavored sparkling water beverage with artificial sweetener (e.g., Bubly Burst Sparkling Water Beverage)
Flavored sparkling water without artificial sweetener (e.g., Bubly Sparkling Water)
Diet soda with artificial sweetener
Chocolate milk with artificial sweetener
Concentrated liquid or powdered drink mixes to be mixed with carbonated liquid (no stimulants)
Concentrated liquid or powdered drink mixes to be mixed with non-carbonated liquid (no stimulants)
* Based on FRAC's interpretation of the waiver language and supporting materials.
16
These examples show the challenge of categorizing foods and beverages for restriction in SNAP, especially when comparing nutritional content and ingredient lists. For example, one 8.45-ounce can of Trader Joe's Sparkling Lemonade contains 90 calories and 19 grams of added sugar. One 8-ounce serving of Minute Maid Lemonade contains 100 calories and 27 grams of added sugar. The latter, with more calories and added sugar per ounce, is eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits, but the sparkling lemonade is not because it is carbonated. (This information is based on an internet search of these products.)
3.
Lack of Evidence Cited to Justify the Waiver
Nebraska's new request predicts that households will make healthier choices and improve their health, but it provides no evidence that the proposed restrictions will produce those results. It does not explain why SNAP participants should be singled out, why the selected categories reflect a consistent nutrition standard, or how a restriction based partly on carbonation and product form will improve overall dietary intake. The template asks the state to explain how its project would improve SNAP administration and benefit delivery. Nebraska's response describes the work needed to notify participants and retailers; it does not establish those improvements.
The request newly mentions Nebraska's Double Up Food Bucks program, which provides incentives for fruit and vegetable purchases at participating locations. That program may help families afford produce, but its presence does not demonstrate that restricting other purchases will improve nutrition or health. If both efforts operate during the demonstration, Nebraska must also explain how it will distinguish their effects. Research on SNAP purchase restrictions has found limited and mixed results and calls for rigorous evaluation of intended and unintended effects. Nebraska also discusses expanding its work with Double Up Food Bucks, which rewards purchases of fruits and vegetables. That effort may benefit participants, but the request does not explain why adding restrictions would improve its results. USDA approved the demonstration without resolving that central gap in Nebraska's justification.
Evidence-based decision making is critical in public policy; however, Nebraska's justification for the original and additional waiver request was insufficient and, at times, misleading or difficult to follow. While the waiver provided limited research on sugar-sweetened beverages and their connection to poor health, it failed to justify targeting SNAP participants or the specific beverages deemed ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits. For example, how does Nebraska rationalize including noncarbonated lemonade while excluding sparkling lemonade? The waiver also failed to recognize that obesity is a complex chronic disease influenced by multiple factors (e.g., genetics, individual behaviors, environmental factors, pharmaceuticals, stress). Instead, the waiver focused solely on dietary intake.
17
To make matters worse, the waiver misrepresented the available data on SNAP and nutrition. A research brief from the Food Research and Action Center describes the many challenges in studies of SNAP participants' food purchases and dietary intake, including selection bias, misreporting of SNAP participation, and cross-sectional study designs.
48
Unfortunately, those seeking to restrict SNAP purchases often overlook or ignore these challenges, which can lead to misleading conclusions about SNAP usage and its impact on dietary intake. The reality is that the food purchases and dietary intake of SNAP participants are remarkably similar to non-participants.
49,
50
The waiver also stated, without citing any research, that "the diet quality of SNAP families has worsened over the past decade regardless of incentive programs and nutrition education." This statement is inaccurate and misleading for a variety of reasons, but especially because of the documented effectiveness of incentive programs and nutrition education through SNAP-Education (SNAP-Ed).
51, 52, 53
On the other hand, recent research reviews describe the limited, problematic, and mixed findings on SNAP purchasing restrictions and their impacts.
54,
55, 56
According to a commentary in the American Journal of Public Health, "evidence does not support the assertion that
48
Plata-Nino, G. (2025). Challenges in Researching the Diets of SNAP Recipients - Addressing Methodological Flaws and Emphasizing SNAP as an Anti-Hunger Program. Washington, DC: Food Research & Action Center. Available at: https://frac.org/research/resource-library/challenges-researching-diets-snap-research-brief
49
Garasky, S., Mbwana, K., Romualdo, A., Tenaglio, A., & Roy, M. (2016). Foods Typically Purchased by SNAP Households. Prepared by IMPAQ International, LLC for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.
50
Gleason, S., Hansen, D., & Wakar, B. (2021). Indicators of Diet Quality, Nutrition, and Health for Americans by Program Participation Status: SNAP Report. Prepared by Insight Policy Research, Contract No. GS-10F-0136X. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, Project Officer: Michael Burke.
51
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2026). SNAP Healthy Incentives - What Does the Research Say? . Accessed on February 11, 2026. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/healthy-incentives
52
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2025). SNAP: Summary of Science. Available at: https://www.eatrightpro.org/news-center/public-policy-news/snap-summary-of-science
53
Keller, K. J. M., Bruno, P., Foerster, S., & Draper, C. (2024). Thirty years of SNAP-Ed: the transition of the nation's largest nutrition education program into a pillar of the public health infrastructure. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 56(8), 588-596.
54
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2025). SNAP: Summary of Science. Available at: https://www.eatrightpro.org/news-center/public-policy-news/snap-summary-of-science
55
Reed L, Johnson J, Lott M, & Story M. (2025). The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives. Durham, NC: Healthy Eating Research. Available at: https://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/the-current-state-of-knowledge-on-snap-restrictions-and-disincentives/
56
Krobath, D. M., Lawrence, J. A., Chrisinger, B. W., & Cuevas, A. G. (2025). Safeguarding SNAP as an effective antihunger program: myths and potential harms of adding diet quality as a core objective. American Journal of Public Health; 115(1): 37-41.
18
setting nutrition standards for eligible SNAP purchases will improve diet quality or health. On the contrary, evidence suggests that should restrictions be implemented, they may instead produce a paradoxical effect through accumulation of new stressors that exacerbate preventable health disparities."
57
And yet, Nebraska is pursuing, and USDA has approved, this large-scale demonstration.
Nebraska officials conclude the request by suggesting - without citing any research - that the restrictions may improve nutrition, reduce chronic disease, and reduce health care costs. However, SNAP already achieves these goals for participants, which the authors did not acknowledge. There is abundant research demonstrating SNAP's critical role in improving food security, dietary intake, weight outcomes, and health,
58
and in reducing health care costs.
59, 60
According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, "although SNAP is not intended to serve as a dietary health intervention for chronic disease, it plays a vital role in helping participants meet their basic nutritional needs SNAP upholds the dignity, autonomy and personal choice of participants, empowering them to decide how best to nourish themselves and their families."
61
Moreover, the waiver request did not fully account for the potential unintended consequences of restrictions (e.g., program stigma, reduced program participation, increased food insecurity) that could harm participants' mental and physical health and thereby increase health care costs.
62
In fact, recent research reviews describe the limited, problematic, and mixed findings on SNAP purchasing restrictions and their
57
Krobath, D. M., Lawrence, J. A., Chrisinger, B. W., & Cuevas, A. G. (2025). Safeguarding SNAP as an effective antihunger program: myths and potential harms of adding diet quality as a core objective. American Journal of Public Health; 115(1): 37-41.
58
Hartline-Grafton, H. (2013). SNAP and Public Health: The Role of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Improving the Health and Well-Being of Americans. Washington, DC: Food Research & Action Center. Available at: https://frac.org/research/resource-library/snap-public-health-role-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-improving-health-well%e2%80%90being-americans
59
Berkowitz, S. A., Palakshappa, D., Rigdon, J., Seligman, H. K., & Basu, S. (2021). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation and health care use in older adults: a cohort study. Annals of Internal Medicin e, 174(12), 1674-1682.
60
Dillman, L., et al. (2023). The impact of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) enrollment on health and cost outcomes. NEJM Catalyst, 4(6), 17.
61
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2025). SNAP: Summary of Science. Available at: https://www.eatrightpro.org/news-center/public-policy-news/snap-summary-of-science
62
Hartline-Grafton, H. (2017). The Impact of Poverty, Food Insecurity, and Poor Nutrition on Health and Well-Being. Washington, DC: Food Research & Action Center. Available at: https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/hunger-health-impact-poverty-food-insecurity-health-well-being.pdf
19
impacts.
63
64
65
According to one commentary in the American Journal of Public Health, "evidence does not support the assertion that setting nutrition standards for eligible SNAP purchases will improve diet quality or health. On the contrary, evidence suggests that should restrictions be implemented, they may instead produce a paradoxical effect through accumulation of new stressors that exacerbate preventable health disparities."
66
4.
Inadequate Communication Plan
The new request provides more detail about outreach than Nebraska's earlier filing. It describes a website, repeated letters to households, updated interview materials and notices, retailer signage, and additional technical assistance for smaller retailers. Those commitments are useful, but Nebraska says it will submit the fuller communication plan and retailer-readiness dates later. The request does not show how the state will test whether participants and retailers can correctly classify products under both the beverage and candy definitions.
The materials developed for the earlier beverage restriction cannot simply be reused without review. Nebraska needs to explain the new candy rule, the different effective dates, how it applies to Summer EBT, and any changes to how it treats beverages containing herbal extracts. It should also resolve inconsistencies in its existing examples and make product guidance accessible to people who cannot rely on an English-language website or a QR code while shopping. Because retailers must update their own point-of-sale classifications, unclear guidance can produce different results for the same product at different stores. The proposed 90-day retailer compliance period and extra assistance for smaller stores acknowledge implementation difficulty but do not resolve the risk of confusion at checkout.
Nebraska now estimates $760,000 in project costs, including $60,000 for client education and $450,000 for evaluation. The explicit estimate is a substantial change from the earlier expectation that the state could absorb communication costs within
63
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2025). SNAP: Summary of Science. Available at: https://www.eatrightpro.org/news-center/public-policy-news/snap-summary-of-science
64
Reed L, Johnson J, Lott M, & Story M. (2025). The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives. Durham, NC: Healthy Eating Research. Available at: https://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/the-current-state-of-knowledge-on-snap-restrictions-and-disincentives/
65
Krobath, D. M., Lawrence, J. A., Chrisinger, B. W., & Cuevas, A. G. (2025). Safeguarding SNAP as an effective antihunger program: myths and potential harms of adding diet quality as a core objective. American Journal of Public Health; 115(1): 37-41.
66
Krobath, D. M., Lawrence, J. A., Chrisinger, B. W., & Cuevas, A. G. (2025). Safeguarding SNAP as an effective antihunger program: myths and potential harms of adding diet quality as a core objective. American Journal of Public Health; 115(1): 37-41.
20
existing resources. The request does not explain whether its estimate includes the full cost of retailers' system changes, staff training, and ongoing product updates.
5.
Inadequate Evaluation Plan
A rigorous evaluation is essential to determining whether Nebraska's purchase restrictions improve nutrition and health or cause unintended harm. A 2025 brief from Healthy Eating Research (HER) recommends measuring changes in food purchases and consumption, as well as effects on SNAP participation, retailer participation, stigma, costs, and administrative burden. It also recommends consistent measures across states so researchers can compare results.
67
More specifically, HER described the important role of evaluation in SNAP demonstration projects:
SNAP waivers are required, by law, to include an evaluation to determine the effects of the demonstration project. Historically, USDA has required that states seeking SNAP waivers submit rigorous evaluation plans and has denied waiver requests that did not meet their standards. To further the evidence, USDA should maintain its standards for rigorous evaluation plans and require that states evaluate purchases and consumption to assess the impact of SNAP restrictions and/or disincentives on diet quality. Evaluations should also assess potential unintended consequences of restrictions, such as reduced participation in the program among eligible individuals and/or retailers or increased stigma USDA should work with state agencies and their research partners to ensure all are evaluating similar outcomes to allow for comparison of data across states.
HER then outlined multiple topics to evaluate in the demonstration projects, including the following: SNAP participation rates pre- and post-implementation; differential impacts by sociodemographic characteristics; participant experiences (e.g., stigma, stress); participant purchases with SNAP benefits versus personal funds; whether participants cross state borders to make purchases in states without restrictions; substitution decisions; changes in nutrition and health outcomes; federal and state costs; administrative burden and implementation challenges; and SNAP retailer participation. HER also encouraged USDA to compare data across states, reinforcing the importance of standardizing evaluation methodology.
67
Reed L, Johnson J, Lott M, & Story M. (2025). The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives. Durham, NC: Healthy Eating Research. Available at: https://https://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/the-current-state-of-knowledge-on-snap-restrictions-and-disincentives/
21
The current Nebraska waiver falls short of HER's recommendations.
68
An evaluation must determine whether the restrictions produce their claimed benefits and identify harms, including changes in food security, SNAP participation, retailer participation, shopping costs, and stigma.
Nebraska's design faces an additional challenge: its earlier beverage restriction began, was vacated, and would restart if USDA approves this request; candy would begin three months later. The state must explain how it will account for those separate periods and distinguish the effects of each restriction from broader changes over time and from Double Up Food Bucks.
The new request does not provide a study design capable of answering those questions. It identifies surveys and transaction monitoring, but leaves central decisions about sampling, comparison groups, outcome measures, and analysis to a later evaluation plan. Because USDA is still reviewing this request, the evaluation requirements in the approval letter for Nebraska's vacated waiver should not be presented as conditions of a new approval. USDA should assess the sufficiency of the current proposal on its own terms before deciding whether to authorize it.
6.
Inadequate Evaluation Language in Waiver Request
Nebraska says it conducted a survey before the earlier restriction and another after six months, and plans to survey participants every six months. The surveys address knowledge, skills, behavior, and self-reported health-related quality of life. The request does not disclose how respondents were selected, how many participated, whether the same households answered both surveys, or how it will account for nonresponse. It also does not specify a method for measuring dietary intake or determining whether any reported change resulted from the restriction.
The request says Nebraska will continue surveying retailers about implementation and satisfaction and will obtain monthly out-of-state transaction histories. It offers little detail about retailer sampling or how those data will be interpreted. Although it describes channels for collecting complaints, it does not set out a systematic way to measure stigma, food access, or whether participants and retailers leave SNAP. It closes the retailer-evaluation discussion by saying that additional details will appear in a later plan. For a statewide project affecting SNAP and Summer EBT purchases, those details
68
Reed L, Johnson J, Lott M, & Story M. (2025). The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives. Durham, NC: Healthy Eating Research. Available at: https://https://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/the-current-state-of-knowledge-on-snap-restrictions-and-disincentives/
22
are necessary to judge whether the demonstration can answer the questions used to justify it.
IV. Conclusion
Finally, these restrictions are being implemented in the context of devastating cuts to SNAP from H. R. 1. This law expanded harsh time limits, eliminated eligibility for many humanitarian immigrants, reduced SNAP benefits, and defunded SNAP-Education. Public health, medical, nutrition, economic, and legal experts have described how the fallout from H. R. 1 is likely to reduce program participation, exacerbate health disparities, increase food insecurity, contribute to negative nutrition and health outcomes, and undermine SNAP's ability to effectively and quickly respond to unfavorable economic conditions.
69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77
Data show that in the year since the enactment of the law, over 5.5 million people have lost access to SNAP, including 32,726 people in Nebraska.
78
In addition, under H. R. 1, states will be required to cover a greater share of SNAP administrative costs and may be required to share SNAP benefit costs based on payment error rates. Current projections indicate that Nebraska will face an additional $13
69
Nguyen, K. H., Gago, C. M., & de Cuba, S. E. (2026). Eroding the foundation: health and social needs of adult SNAP participants in an era of policy change. Health Affairs Scholar, 4(4), qxag086.
70
Eicher-Miller, H. A., & Gundersen, C. (2026). Concerns for United States food security amid changes in work requirements of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the termination of nutrition education through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 123(6), 101306.
71
Austin, A. E., Ettinger de Cuba, S., Maierhofer, C. N., Naumann, R. B., & Shafer, P. R. (2026). Protecting SNAP as a critical public health intervention. Preventive Medicine, 204, 108518.
72
Bleich, S. N., & Plata-Nino, G. (2026). Changes to SNAP under HR 1 and the implications fo
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FNA-2026-0463-0045
Austin Community Foundation Urges Withdrawal of Proposed Census Residence Criteria and Demographic Question Limits
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
October 28, 2026
Mr. Daniel Sweeney
Deputy General Counsel for Economic, Statistical, and Regulatory Affairs
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Commerce
4600 Silver Hill Road
Designation: ADDEMO/FRN
Washington, DC 20746
Re: "Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions" (Docket No. 260903-0005; RIN 0607-AA75)
Dear Mr. Sweeney:
Austin ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 28, 2026 Mr. Daniel Sweeney Deputy General Counsel for Economic, Statistical, and Regulatory Affairs Office of the General Counsel, Department of Commerce 4600 Silver Hill Road Designation: ADDEMO/FRN Washington, DC 20746 Re: "Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions" (Docket No. 260903-0005; RIN 0607-AA75) Dear Mr. Sweeney: AustinCommunity Foundation (ACF) respectfully opposes the Department of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau's proposed rule published on September 10, 2026, titled Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions (Docket No. 260903-0005).
Founded in 1977, ACF connects resources with community needs through grantmaking, research, convening, and leadership to expand opportunity across Central Texas. Accurate and complete census data is fundamental to our work. ACF uses local knowledge and lived experience to understand community challenges, identify the needs of the populations we serve, and direct philanthropic resources where they can have the greatest impact.
Texas continues to experience rapid population growth, outpacing nearly every other state. Inaccurate census data could deprive communities of vital public and private resources. The proposed residence criteria would exclude some residents from the totals used for congressional apportionment, creating an incomplete picture of Central Texas. Efforts to determine legal status could also discourage participation among immigrant and mixed-status families and increase the risk of a broader undercount. When residents are missing from the data, philanthropy, public services, and community planning cannot fully address their needs.
Prohibiting questions about race and ethnicity would further weaken the data available to guide effective strategies. Although Central Texas is growing rapidly, the benefits and challenges are not shared equally. Detailed demographic data help ACF and our partners identify disparities, target resources, and measure results. Sample surveys and administrative records cannot replace the reach and local details of the decennial census.
Excluding residents or eliminating essential demographic information would impair the ability of philanthropic, public, private, and nonprofit institutions to make informed decisions and align resources with the needs of Central Texans.
Austin Community Foundation requests that both parts of the proposed rule be withdrawn. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Mike Nellis
Chief Executive Officer
Austin Community Foundation
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USBC-2026-0628-119866
October 28, 2026
Mr. Daniel Sweeney
Deputy General Counsel for Economic, Statistical, and Regulatory Affairs
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Commerce
4600 Silver Hill Road
Designation: ADDEMO/FRN
Washington, DC 20746
Re: "Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions" (Docket No. 260903-0005; RIN 0607-AA75)
Dear Mr. Sweeney:
Austin ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 28, 2026 Mr. Daniel Sweeney Deputy General Counsel for Economic, Statistical, and Regulatory Affairs Office of the General Counsel, Department of Commerce 4600 Silver Hill Road Designation: ADDEMO/FRN Washington, DC 20746 Re: "Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions" (Docket No. 260903-0005; RIN 0607-AA75) Dear Mr. Sweeney: AustinCommunity Foundation (ACF) respectfully opposes the Department of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau's proposed rule published on September 10, 2026, titled Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions (Docket No. 260903-0005).
Founded in 1977, ACF connects resources with community needs through grantmaking, research, convening, and leadership to expand opportunity across Central Texas. Accurate and complete census data is fundamental to our work. ACF uses local knowledge and lived experience to understand community challenges, identify the needs of the populations we serve, and direct philanthropic resources where they can have the greatest impact.
Texas continues to experience rapid population growth, outpacing nearly every other state. Inaccurate census data could deprive communities of vital public and private resources. The proposed residence criteria would exclude some residents from the totals used for congressional apportionment, creating an incomplete picture of Central Texas. Efforts to determine legal status could also discourage participation among immigrant and mixed-status families and increase the risk of a broader undercount. When residents are missing from the data, philanthropy, public services, and community planning cannot fully address their needs.
Prohibiting questions about race and ethnicity would further weaken the data available to guide effective strategies. Although Central Texas is growing rapidly, the benefits and challenges are not shared equally. Detailed demographic data help ACF and our partners identify disparities, target resources, and measure results. Sample surveys and administrative records cannot replace the reach and local details of the decennial census.
Excluding residents or eliminating essential demographic information would impair the ability of philanthropic, public, private, and nonprofit institutions to make informed decisions and align resources with the needs of Central Texans.
Austin Community Foundation requests that both parts of the proposed rule be withdrawn. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Mike Nellis
Chief Executive Officer
Austin Community Foundation
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USBC-2026-0628-119866
American Bankers Association Urges CFPB to Reduce Burden and Improve Guidance for Credit Card Terms Reporting
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
October 30, 2026
Mr. Anthony May
Paperwork Reduction Act Officer
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
1700 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20552
Re: Docket No. CFPB-2026-0021, Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request, OMB Control Number 3170-0001, Report of Terms of Credit Card Plans (Form FR 2572) and Consumer and College Credit Card Agreements
Dear Mr. May:
The American Bankers Association ("ABA"),1 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 30, 2026 Mr. Anthony May Paperwork Reduction Act Officer Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 1700 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20552 Re: Docket No. CFPB-2026-0021, Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request, OMB Control Number 3170-0001, Report of Terms of Credit Card Plans (Form FR 2572) and Consumer and College Credit Card Agreements Dear Mr. May: The American Bankers Association ("ABA"),1representing banks across the regulated financial system, writes in regard to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") Paperwork Reduction Act ("PRA") request for comment regarding revisions to the information collection titled "Report of Terms of Credit Card Plans (Form FR 2572) and Consumer and College Credit Card Agreements" ("Request").
Report of Terms of Credit Card Plans
ABA appreciates the CFPB's ongoing engagement on the Terms of Credit Card Plans ("TCCP") Survey. In particular, ABA appreciates the CFPB's recent action to retire its online credit card comparison tool, which the CFPB developed under the prior Administration without express statutory authority and to the detriment of consumers and the broader credit card market. ABA agrees with the CFPB's determination that "[t]he CFPB does not have timely source data to effectively support the purposes for which consumers might want a card comparison tool."2 As shared with the CFPB in the past,3 it is ABA's view that the comparison tool created unnecessary reporting burden, risked consumer confusion, and was inferior to private-sector solutions.
ABA also appreciates the CFPB's attention to eliminating data elements in the TCCP Survey that required issuers to provide information beyond the requirement under Section 136(b) of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") to collect and disclose "credit card price and
1 The American Bankers Association is the voice of the nation's $21.1 trillion banking industry, which is composed of small, regional, and large banks that together employ more than 2 million people, safeguard nearly $17 trillion in deposits, and extend nearly $11 trillion in loans. Learn more at www.aba.com.
2 See CFPB, Terms of Credit Card Plans Survey (announcing the CFPB's decision to retire the credit card comparison tool), (last visited Oct. 9, 2026), available here.
3 See ABA et al., Letter to CFPB on Credit Card Agreement Terms Collection (Oct. 14, 2022); ABA et al., Letter to CFPB on Revisions to Terms of Credit Card Plans Survey Request (Mar. 13, 2023); ABA, Letter to CFPB on Revisions to Terms of Credit Card Plans Survey Request (Apr. 7, 2026).
2
availability information." For example, the CFPB removed the extra-statutory TCCP Survey fields, including the field requiring card issuers to provide data on the median APR offered to consumers within a credit score tier.4 As commented previously, the collection of the median APR lacked practical utility and created reporting burden on card issuers that was not otherwise offset by consumer benefit.5 That said, ABA notes that certain TCCP Survey fields require binary responses to pricing and feature questions that do not account for nuance in card products. The only way an issuer can communicate such nuances to the CFPB is by email outside of the Collect portal, which, as discussed further below, presents its own challenges.6
Beyond the substantive enhancements to the TCCP Survey, to promote the quality and consistency of the TCCP Survey data, ABA respectfully requests that the CFPB provide additional guidance in the reporting instructions for each data point so that data submissions are based on a consistent interpretation of the Survey questions across reporting entities, as issuer and CFPB interpretations of a given data field can reasonably differ. For example, the Survey instrument remains ambiguous as to whether data is pulled at the account application date or the account open date.
From a procedural perspective, the data submission process remains manually intensive, increasing the burden on reporting entities. Currently, the submission process requires issuers to leverage an independently developed and managed internal tracker specifically for this information collection. While we acknowledge that the required submission is now limited to a responding issuer's single largest credit card product, each product must be fully submitted at one time; that is, there is no ability to save a submission that is in process, creating operational challenges for reporting entities. Additionally, the Collect portal includes an overview page for pre-submission review of data, but it lacks the functionality to allow issuers to export, share, or edit the submission outside of or within the portal prior to submission. Thus, reporting entities have limited ability for broad internal validation prior to their official submission, and any errors identified after submission presently can only be corrected by emailing an updated submission to the CFPB, with no ability to delete or otherwise supersede the original submission.
To reduce this operational burden, ABA requests that the CFPB provide a consistent tracker that is reflective of the information collection in the Collect portal, allow issuers to edit or modify data from the pre-submission overview page, and provide the ability to correct or delete a prior submission after an error is identified.
Given the manual nature of submissions via the Collect portal, we request that issuers be permitted to submit on a change-only basis, with an attestation requirement to confirm that there are no reportable changes. Issuers generally will not materially modify their submissions bi-annually, except with respect to APR data points. Thus, a specific 4 See Supporting Statement for Terms of Credit Card Plans Survey and Consumer and College Credit Card Agreements (date uploaded 9/30/2026).
5 See supra note 3.
6 We respectfully request that the CFPB update the TCCP Survey User Guide; the most recent version of the User Guide we are aware of is dated May 2026, and does not reflect the important substantive improvements to the TCCP Survey.
3
request for issuers to submit APR data points, as required by statute, via a spreadsheet upload at the specified statutory frequency would capture the vast majority of changed data points from submission to submission. In addition, ABA requests that the CFPB allow issuers to update the email address used to receive submission confirmations and notices, as the personnel responsible for reporting in any given cycle may change over time, and that the CFPB permit issuers to export their submitted responses in PDF or Word format for recordkeeping purposes. These changes would reduce issuers' operational burden and would allow issuers to better allocate resources to improve product development, customer service, or other customer-facing initiatives.
Consumer and College Credit Card Agreement Submissions
The Request also seeks comment on the necessity, practical utility, and burden of the information collection under (i) Section 204 of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 ("CARD Act"), which requires issuers to submit agreements between the issuer and a consumer under a credit card account for an open-end consumer credit plan, and (ii) Section 305 of the CARD Act, which requires issuers to submit college credit card agreements and additional supporting documentation.
As a general matter, as a result of improvements in automation and internal processes developed by issuers to efficiently meet this statutory obligation, the compliance burden from a technical perspective is less significant now compared to when the requirement to submit such agreements to the CFPB first went into effect. Nevertheless, to be responsive to the Request, ABA members recently reported that there remains significant burden related to making such submissions. Certain issuers estimate that each submission requires approximately 85 person-hours, including 27 hours for data collection, 27 hours for the internal submission review and approval process, 4 hours for the data review and validation, and 24 hours to upload the information into the Collect portal. In addition, issuers conduct weekly meetings regarding the submission for approximately 1.5 hours with their relevant internal teams. Given this burden, ABA requests that the CFPB evaluate the extent to which the submitted agreement data is reviewed or otherwise used by the public and weigh that usage against the burden described above in determining the continued scope of this collection.
* * *
We respectfully request that the CFPB consider the above-identified improvements in order to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity, and reduce the burden of the information to be collected.
Thank you again for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CFPB-2026-0021-0003
October 30, 2026
Mr. Anthony May
Paperwork Reduction Act Officer
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
1700 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20552
Re: Docket No. CFPB-2026-0021, Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request, OMB Control Number 3170-0001, Report of Terms of Credit Card Plans (Form FR 2572) and Consumer and College Credit Card Agreements
Dear Mr. May:
The American Bankers Association ("ABA"),1 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 30, 2026 Mr. Anthony May Paperwork Reduction Act Officer Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 1700 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20552 Re: Docket No. CFPB-2026-0021, Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request, OMB Control Number 3170-0001, Report of Terms of Credit Card Plans (Form FR 2572) and Consumer and College Credit Card Agreements Dear Mr. May: The American Bankers Association ("ABA"),1representing banks across the regulated financial system, writes in regard to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") Paperwork Reduction Act ("PRA") request for comment regarding revisions to the information collection titled "Report of Terms of Credit Card Plans (Form FR 2572) and Consumer and College Credit Card Agreements" ("Request").
Report of Terms of Credit Card Plans
ABA appreciates the CFPB's ongoing engagement on the Terms of Credit Card Plans ("TCCP") Survey. In particular, ABA appreciates the CFPB's recent action to retire its online credit card comparison tool, which the CFPB developed under the prior Administration without express statutory authority and to the detriment of consumers and the broader credit card market. ABA agrees with the CFPB's determination that "[t]he CFPB does not have timely source data to effectively support the purposes for which consumers might want a card comparison tool."2 As shared with the CFPB in the past,3 it is ABA's view that the comparison tool created unnecessary reporting burden, risked consumer confusion, and was inferior to private-sector solutions.
ABA also appreciates the CFPB's attention to eliminating data elements in the TCCP Survey that required issuers to provide information beyond the requirement under Section 136(b) of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") to collect and disclose "credit card price and
1 The American Bankers Association is the voice of the nation's $21.1 trillion banking industry, which is composed of small, regional, and large banks that together employ more than 2 million people, safeguard nearly $17 trillion in deposits, and extend nearly $11 trillion in loans. Learn more at www.aba.com.
2 See CFPB, Terms of Credit Card Plans Survey (announcing the CFPB's decision to retire the credit card comparison tool), (last visited Oct. 9, 2026), available here.
3 See ABA et al., Letter to CFPB on Credit Card Agreement Terms Collection (Oct. 14, 2022); ABA et al., Letter to CFPB on Revisions to Terms of Credit Card Plans Survey Request (Mar. 13, 2023); ABA, Letter to CFPB on Revisions to Terms of Credit Card Plans Survey Request (Apr. 7, 2026).
2
availability information." For example, the CFPB removed the extra-statutory TCCP Survey fields, including the field requiring card issuers to provide data on the median APR offered to consumers within a credit score tier.4 As commented previously, the collection of the median APR lacked practical utility and created reporting burden on card issuers that was not otherwise offset by consumer benefit.5 That said, ABA notes that certain TCCP Survey fields require binary responses to pricing and feature questions that do not account for nuance in card products. The only way an issuer can communicate such nuances to the CFPB is by email outside of the Collect portal, which, as discussed further below, presents its own challenges.6
Beyond the substantive enhancements to the TCCP Survey, to promote the quality and consistency of the TCCP Survey data, ABA respectfully requests that the CFPB provide additional guidance in the reporting instructions for each data point so that data submissions are based on a consistent interpretation of the Survey questions across reporting entities, as issuer and CFPB interpretations of a given data field can reasonably differ. For example, the Survey instrument remains ambiguous as to whether data is pulled at the account application date or the account open date.
From a procedural perspective, the data submission process remains manually intensive, increasing the burden on reporting entities. Currently, the submission process requires issuers to leverage an independently developed and managed internal tracker specifically for this information collection. While we acknowledge that the required submission is now limited to a responding issuer's single largest credit card product, each product must be fully submitted at one time; that is, there is no ability to save a submission that is in process, creating operational challenges for reporting entities. Additionally, the Collect portal includes an overview page for pre-submission review of data, but it lacks the functionality to allow issuers to export, share, or edit the submission outside of or within the portal prior to submission. Thus, reporting entities have limited ability for broad internal validation prior to their official submission, and any errors identified after submission presently can only be corrected by emailing an updated submission to the CFPB, with no ability to delete or otherwise supersede the original submission.
To reduce this operational burden, ABA requests that the CFPB provide a consistent tracker that is reflective of the information collection in the Collect portal, allow issuers to edit or modify data from the pre-submission overview page, and provide the ability to correct or delete a prior submission after an error is identified.
Given the manual nature of submissions via the Collect portal, we request that issuers be permitted to submit on a change-only basis, with an attestation requirement to confirm that there are no reportable changes. Issuers generally will not materially modify their submissions bi-annually, except with respect to APR data points. Thus, a specific 4 See Supporting Statement for Terms of Credit Card Plans Survey and Consumer and College Credit Card Agreements (date uploaded 9/30/2026).
5 See supra note 3.
6 We respectfully request that the CFPB update the TCCP Survey User Guide; the most recent version of the User Guide we are aware of is dated May 2026, and does not reflect the important substantive improvements to the TCCP Survey.
3
request for issuers to submit APR data points, as required by statute, via a spreadsheet upload at the specified statutory frequency would capture the vast majority of changed data points from submission to submission. In addition, ABA requests that the CFPB allow issuers to update the email address used to receive submission confirmations and notices, as the personnel responsible for reporting in any given cycle may change over time, and that the CFPB permit issuers to export their submitted responses in PDF or Word format for recordkeeping purposes. These changes would reduce issuers' operational burden and would allow issuers to better allocate resources to improve product development, customer service, or other customer-facing initiatives.
Consumer and College Credit Card Agreement Submissions
The Request also seeks comment on the necessity, practical utility, and burden of the information collection under (i) Section 204 of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 ("CARD Act"), which requires issuers to submit agreements between the issuer and a consumer under a credit card account for an open-end consumer credit plan, and (ii) Section 305 of the CARD Act, which requires issuers to submit college credit card agreements and additional supporting documentation.
As a general matter, as a result of improvements in automation and internal processes developed by issuers to efficiently meet this statutory obligation, the compliance burden from a technical perspective is less significant now compared to when the requirement to submit such agreements to the CFPB first went into effect. Nevertheless, to be responsive to the Request, ABA members recently reported that there remains significant burden related to making such submissions. Certain issuers estimate that each submission requires approximately 85 person-hours, including 27 hours for data collection, 27 hours for the internal submission review and approval process, 4 hours for the data review and validation, and 24 hours to upload the information into the Collect portal. In addition, issuers conduct weekly meetings regarding the submission for approximately 1.5 hours with their relevant internal teams. Given this burden, ABA requests that the CFPB evaluate the extent to which the submitted agreement data is reviewed or otherwise used by the public and weigh that usage against the burden described above in determining the continued scope of this collection.
* * *
We respectfully request that the CFPB consider the above-identified improvements in order to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity, and reduce the burden of the information to be collected.
Thank you again for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CFPB-2026-0021-0003
U.S. Climate Alliance Urges EPA to Withdraw Proposal Ending Power Plant Carbon Pollution Standards
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
States United for Climate Action | www.usclimatealliance.org
The Honorable Lee M. Zeldin
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
October 30, 2026 Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124
Dear Administrator Zeldin,
I write on behalf of the U.S. Climate Alliance ("Alliance"), a bipartisan coalition of governors who together represent approximately 60 percent ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. States United for Climate Action | www.usclimatealliance.org The Honorable Lee M. Zeldin Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 October 30, 2026 Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124 Dear Administrator Zeldin, I write on behalf of the U.S. Climate Alliance ("Alliance"), a bipartisan coalition of governors who together represent approximately 60 percentof the U.S. economy and 55 percent of the U.S. population. We are deeply concerned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to eliminate all carbon pollution standards for power plants and repeal the agency's own science-based determination that greenhouse gases emitted from power plants, including carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare.
1 This proposal would leave hundreds of millions of Americans unprotected against dangerous greenhouse gas pollution from fossil fuel-fired plants - ignoring indisputable science, the will of the American people, and the agency's clear obligations under the Clean Air Act. We urge EPA to withdraw this proposal and return to its mission: protecting human health and the environment based on science, facts, and the law.
Alliance members strongly oppose this proposal's departure from past precedent and abandonment of EPA's legal responsibility to safeguard public health and welfare from air pollutants, including greenhouse gases. The agency has been obligated to control carbon pollution from power plants for more than a decade, and this duty is consistent with both widely agreed upon science
2 and EPA's own evidence-based findings and determination in 2015.
3 The authority to regulate harmful greenhouse gas pollution has been affirmed by the Supreme Court
4 and consistently upheld through numerous legal challenges.
5 Most recently, Congress codified amendments to the Clean Air Act in 2022 to expressly deem greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons as air pollutants,
6 and in 2023, the Supreme Court chose not to revisit this longstanding precedent.
7 Federal administrations of both parties have upheld this fundamental principle, including under President Trump's first administration.
There is no doubt that unfettered power plant pollution adversely impacts our public health and is a major contributor to global carbon emissions. In fact, the U.S. electricity sector emitted more than 1,400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2023, including nearly 700 million metric tons from coal-fired plants and over 700 million metric tons from gas-fired plants.
8 If our nation's electricity sector were a country, that level of pollution would rank it as the fifth biggest emitter in the world.
9 Even the courts have recognized that science is clear on this matter. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said, carbon pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants contributes significantly to climate impacts "under any reasonable threshold or definition."
10 Climate damages driven by greenhouse gas pollution are worsening and being felt by Americans across the country - from
1 U.S. EPA. "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units." October 23, 2015.
2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), August 9, 2021.
3 U.S. EPA. "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units." October 23, 2015.
4 U.S. Supreme Court. American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011).
5 Akin Gump. "EPA's Endangerment Finding in Danger?" February 19, 2025.
6 See 42 U.S.C. 7432 (2022) and Public Law 117-169 (2022).
7 The New York Times. "Inside Trump's Renewed Effort to Undo a Major Climate Rule." January 28, 2025.
8 U.S. EPA. "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2023." EPA greenhouse gas inventory documents, obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. May 7, 2025.
9 EDGAR (Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research) Community GHG Database, a collaboration between the European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), the International Energy Agency (IEA), and comprising IEA-EDGAR CO2, EDGAR CH4, EDGAR N2O, EDGAR F-GASES version EDGAR_2026_GHG (2026) European Commission, JRC (Datasets). "GHG emissions of all world countries: 2026 report."
10 American Lung Association v. Environmental Protection Agency (D.C. Circuit, 2021).
devastating floods to drought to extreme heat to catastrophic wildfire - raising household costs and endangering families and communities.
Contrary to EPA's arguments, it is not futile to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Just look at the progress made by Alliance states and territories over the last two decades. Through a suite of state-level policies, the Alliance's members have collectively reduced carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 45 percent between 2005 and 2023 - driving a 24 percent reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions - while simultaneously adding 210 gigawatts of new generation capacity, growing their economies by 34 percent, and delivering lower levels of harmful air pollutants than the rest of the country.
11,12 Our states are making clear the United States need not choose between safeguarding clean air and meeting our need for affordable, reliable, and resilient power. We can and must do both.
Our world is warming at a dangerous rate due to greenhouse gas pollution, which will pose increasingly dire consequences if our country fails to act. The U.S. is responsible for emitting almost a quarter of all historic greenhouse gas emissions,
13 more than any other country. Yet at this critical moment for action, EPA's proposal threatens to worsen global climate change and exacerbate its harms. Alarmingly, abandonment by EPA of its emissions-reduction efforts risks increasing global greenhouse gas pollution by other countries, with further direct impacts to Americans. As the world's largest economy and second-largest emitter, experts note actions by the U.S. to ramp up or ramp down its efforts on greenhouse gas pollution can "either dampen or accelerate" similar actions by the international community.
14 To truly protect the safety and security of our communities, it is essential for the world to know our country is continuing its work to reduce greenhouse gas pollution from all major sources, including power plants.
Alliance members will continue working to decarbonize the electricity sector through a variety of state-level approaches and strategies, such as clean energy standards, air pollution and energy grid regulations, and statewide and regional carbon market programs. This work reflects what the overwhelming majority of Americans want. According to recent public polling, nearly three-quarters of the U.S. population - including majorities in all 50 states - support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
15 Unfortunately, EPA's proposal rejects protecting people from carbon pollution and instead prolongs reliance on dirtier, more expensive forms of electricity,
16 leading to higher energy costs while causing unmitigated environmental and public health harms.
Our nation needs holistic solutions in the electricity sector that meet growing energy demand, reflect the indisputable science on climate change, safeguard Americans' fundamental right to clean air, and prioritize the protection of public health and safety. As noted, the Alliance's members have demonstrated this is possible. EPA's proposal fails to meet these goals and threatens unacceptable harms to our communities, and we urge that it be withdrawn.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Casey Katims
Executive Director
U.S. Climate Alliance
11 U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Form EIA-860." Final 2025 data. September 10, 2025.
12 U.S. Climate Alliance. "Pressing Forward: Governors' Enduring Fight for a Resilient & Sustainable Future." November 2025.
13 Our World in Data. "Cumulative CO2 emissions." Accessed September 30, 2026.
14 Hultman, Nathan and Gross, Samantha. "How the United States can return to credible climate leadership." March 1, 2021.
15 Yale Climate Opinion Maps 2025. "Estimated % of adults who somewhat or strongly support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (nat'l avg. 74%), 2025." May 6, 2026.
16 Energy Innovation. "The Coal Cost Crossover 3.0." January 2023.
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-3114
States United for Climate Action | www.usclimatealliance.org
The Honorable Lee M. Zeldin
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
October 30, 2026 Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124
Dear Administrator Zeldin,
I write on behalf of the U.S. Climate Alliance ("Alliance"), a bipartisan coalition of governors who together represent approximately 60 percent ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. States United for Climate Action | www.usclimatealliance.org The Honorable Lee M. Zeldin Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 October 30, 2026 Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124 Dear Administrator Zeldin, I write on behalf of the U.S. Climate Alliance ("Alliance"), a bipartisan coalition of governors who together represent approximately 60 percentof the U.S. economy and 55 percent of the U.S. population. We are deeply concerned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to eliminate all carbon pollution standards for power plants and repeal the agency's own science-based determination that greenhouse gases emitted from power plants, including carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare.
1 This proposal would leave hundreds of millions of Americans unprotected against dangerous greenhouse gas pollution from fossil fuel-fired plants - ignoring indisputable science, the will of the American people, and the agency's clear obligations under the Clean Air Act. We urge EPA to withdraw this proposal and return to its mission: protecting human health and the environment based on science, facts, and the law.
Alliance members strongly oppose this proposal's departure from past precedent and abandonment of EPA's legal responsibility to safeguard public health and welfare from air pollutants, including greenhouse gases. The agency has been obligated to control carbon pollution from power plants for more than a decade, and this duty is consistent with both widely agreed upon science
2 and EPA's own evidence-based findings and determination in 2015.
3 The authority to regulate harmful greenhouse gas pollution has been affirmed by the Supreme Court
4 and consistently upheld through numerous legal challenges.
5 Most recently, Congress codified amendments to the Clean Air Act in 2022 to expressly deem greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons as air pollutants,
6 and in 2023, the Supreme Court chose not to revisit this longstanding precedent.
7 Federal administrations of both parties have upheld this fundamental principle, including under President Trump's first administration.
There is no doubt that unfettered power plant pollution adversely impacts our public health and is a major contributor to global carbon emissions. In fact, the U.S. electricity sector emitted more than 1,400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2023, including nearly 700 million metric tons from coal-fired plants and over 700 million metric tons from gas-fired plants.
8 If our nation's electricity sector were a country, that level of pollution would rank it as the fifth biggest emitter in the world.
9 Even the courts have recognized that science is clear on this matter. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said, carbon pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants contributes significantly to climate impacts "under any reasonable threshold or definition."
10 Climate damages driven by greenhouse gas pollution are worsening and being felt by Americans across the country - from
1 U.S. EPA. "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units." October 23, 2015.
2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), August 9, 2021.
3 U.S. EPA. "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units." October 23, 2015.
4 U.S. Supreme Court. American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011).
5 Akin Gump. "EPA's Endangerment Finding in Danger?" February 19, 2025.
6 See 42 U.S.C. 7432 (2022) and Public Law 117-169 (2022).
7 The New York Times. "Inside Trump's Renewed Effort to Undo a Major Climate Rule." January 28, 2025.
8 U.S. EPA. "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2023." EPA greenhouse gas inventory documents, obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. May 7, 2025.
9 EDGAR (Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research) Community GHG Database, a collaboration between the European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), the International Energy Agency (IEA), and comprising IEA-EDGAR CO2, EDGAR CH4, EDGAR N2O, EDGAR F-GASES version EDGAR_2026_GHG (2026) European Commission, JRC (Datasets). "GHG emissions of all world countries: 2026 report."
10 American Lung Association v. Environmental Protection Agency (D.C. Circuit, 2021).
devastating floods to drought to extreme heat to catastrophic wildfire - raising household costs and endangering families and communities.
Contrary to EPA's arguments, it is not futile to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Just look at the progress made by Alliance states and territories over the last two decades. Through a suite of state-level policies, the Alliance's members have collectively reduced carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 45 percent between 2005 and 2023 - driving a 24 percent reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions - while simultaneously adding 210 gigawatts of new generation capacity, growing their economies by 34 percent, and delivering lower levels of harmful air pollutants than the rest of the country.
11,12 Our states are making clear the United States need not choose between safeguarding clean air and meeting our need for affordable, reliable, and resilient power. We can and must do both.
Our world is warming at a dangerous rate due to greenhouse gas pollution, which will pose increasingly dire consequences if our country fails to act. The U.S. is responsible for emitting almost a quarter of all historic greenhouse gas emissions,
13 more than any other country. Yet at this critical moment for action, EPA's proposal threatens to worsen global climate change and exacerbate its harms. Alarmingly, abandonment by EPA of its emissions-reduction efforts risks increasing global greenhouse gas pollution by other countries, with further direct impacts to Americans. As the world's largest economy and second-largest emitter, experts note actions by the U.S. to ramp up or ramp down its efforts on greenhouse gas pollution can "either dampen or accelerate" similar actions by the international community.
14 To truly protect the safety and security of our communities, it is essential for the world to know our country is continuing its work to reduce greenhouse gas pollution from all major sources, including power plants.
Alliance members will continue working to decarbonize the electricity sector through a variety of state-level approaches and strategies, such as clean energy standards, air pollution and energy grid regulations, and statewide and regional carbon market programs. This work reflects what the overwhelming majority of Americans want. According to recent public polling, nearly three-quarters of the U.S. population - including majorities in all 50 states - support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
15 Unfortunately, EPA's proposal rejects protecting people from carbon pollution and instead prolongs reliance on dirtier, more expensive forms of electricity,
16 leading to higher energy costs while causing unmitigated environmental and public health harms.
Our nation needs holistic solutions in the electricity sector that meet growing energy demand, reflect the indisputable science on climate change, safeguard Americans' fundamental right to clean air, and prioritize the protection of public health and safety. As noted, the Alliance's members have demonstrated this is possible. EPA's proposal fails to meet these goals and threatens unacceptable harms to our communities, and we urge that it be withdrawn.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Casey Katims
Executive Director
U.S. Climate Alliance
11 U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Form EIA-860." Final 2025 data. September 10, 2025.
12 U.S. Climate Alliance. "Pressing Forward: Governors' Enduring Fight for a Resilient & Sustainable Future." November 2025.
13 Our World in Data. "Cumulative CO2 emissions." Accessed September 30, 2026.
14 Hultman, Nathan and Gross, Samantha. "How the United States can return to credible climate leadership." March 1, 2021.
15 Yale Climate Opinion Maps 2025. "Estimated % of adults who somewhat or strongly support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (nat'l avg. 74%), 2025." May 6, 2026.
16 Energy Innovation. "The Coal Cost Crossover 3.0." January 2023.
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-3114
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments Urge EPA to Withdraw Proposal Repealing Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Standards
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
October 30th, 2026
Lee Zeldin, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
William J. Clinton Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Findings for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants and Repeal of Regulations for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under Clean Air Act Section 111 (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124)
Dear Administrator Zeldin:
The Alliance of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 30th, 2026 Lee Zeldin, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency William J. Clinton Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Re: Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Findings for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants and Repeal of Regulations for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under Clean Air Act Section 111 (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124) Dear Administrator Zeldin: The Alliance ofNurses for Healthy Environments (ANHE), the only national nursing organization focused solely on the intersection of health and the environment, appreciates the opportunity to provide comments.ANHE strongly opposes EPA's proposed repeal of the greenhouse gas standards for fossil fuel power plants.1
In this proposal, EPA claims that the Clean Air Act does not allow it to regulate power plants in response to global climate change concerns.2 If finalized, EPA would rescind its earlier findings and repeal all remaining greenhouse gas standards for power plants. This follows EPA's February 2026 decision to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding,3 which concluded that climate change endangers public health and welfare for current and future generations. Rescinding that finding set aside the federal government's own scientific conclusion about the danger of climate pollution, and this proposal would extend the same approach to power plants. Further, while climate change is a global problem, pollution from power plants harms Americans across the country and EPA has an obligation to reduce emissions that contribute significantly to human health harms.
3 U.S. EPA. (2026, February 18). Rescission of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding and motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards under the Clean Air Act. 91 Fed. Reg. 7686.
2 See 91 Fed. Reg. at 59002 (summary) and 59005 to 59006 (executive summary)
1 U.S. EPA. (2026, September 17). Rescission of the greenhouse gas findings for fossil fuel-fired power plants and repeal of regulations for power plant greenhouse gas emissions under Clean Air Act section 111 (Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking). 91 Fed. Reg. 59002. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/17/2026-19072/rescission-of-the-greenhouse-gas-findings-for-fossil-fuel-fired-power-plants-and-repeal-of We urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw this proposal. Countless court rulings4 and evidence produced in thousands of studies have confirmed that climate change, fueled by climate pollution, is causing devastating impacts on people's lives.5 In the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case of Massachusetts v. EPA,6 the Court determined that greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change are clearly air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This case has not been overruled. EPA relies on later decisions, but none of them overturned it.7
Congress wrote the Clean Air Act so that EPA can regulate sources that contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The Act includes climate in its definition of welfare8. By choosing to repeal the greenhouse gas standards for power plants, EPA is ignoring both the science and the court precedent that confirm its responsibility to protect people from pollution.
The congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment,9 incorporating the expertise of over 400 scientists, has consistently found with overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating climate change, that the global warming experienced over the industrial era is unequivocally caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, and that the US is warming faster than the global average.
Climate change is already harming the health of people in every region of the country. Wildfire smoke and worsening air quality are harming breathing and heart health.10 Everyone is affected, whether rich or 10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Climate and health: Wildfires (web page). https://www.cdc.gov/climate-health/php/effects/wildfires.html; Fifth National Climate Assessment (2023). Chapter 14: Air quality. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH14
9 Fifth National Climate Assessment (2023). https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/; The White House. (2023, November 9). Fact sheet: Fifth national climate assessment details impacts of climate change on regions across the United States.
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ostp/news-updates/2023/11/09/fact-sheet-fifth-national-climate-assessment-details-impacts-of-climate-change-on-regions-across-the-united-states/ 8 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7411(b)(1)(A) (sources that cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare); 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7602(h) (language referring to effects on welfare includes effects on weather and climate).
7 EPA relies on West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014). See 91 Fed. Reg. at 59005 and 59014. The latter decision stated that Massachusetts does not foreclose the use of statutory context in reading the Act. It did not overrule it.
6 Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 528 to 529 (2007).
5 IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
[H.-O. Portner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegria, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Loschke, V. Moller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056 pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844
4 Doniger, D. (2025, Feb 26). Can Trump reverse the climate endangerment finding? Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/david-doniger/can-trump-reverse-climate-endangerment-finding
poor, but some people face greater risk, including children, older adults, outdoor workers, people with health conditions, low-wealth communities, and communities of color.11
As nurses we see, on a daily basis, the devastating impacts of climate change, including extreme weather and warmer temperatures. With 2024 being the world's hottest year on record12 and with communities still grappling with the impacts of catastrophic climate disasters like the flash flooding in Texas,13 fires in Los Angeles,14 the hurricane flooding in North Carolina,15and 143 straight days16 of over 100 degree heat in Phoenix, this proposal is both shocking and dangerous to human health and well being.
Power plants are one of the largest sources of climate pollution in the country. Coal and gas fired power plants are responsible for about 25% of climate pollution in the U.S.,17 second only to transportation, which accounts for 28%.18 EPA's 2024 suite of rules to address greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power plants was projected to avoid 1.38 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through 2047, which is nearly an entire year of emissions from the U.S. power sector,19 along with tens of thousands of tons of fine particle pollution, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. EPA projected up to $370 billion in net climate and public health benefits between 2024 and 2047.20 In 2035 alone, the standards were projected to deliver the following health benefits:
* 1,200 avoided premature deaths
* 1,900 avoided cases of new asthma
* 360,000 fewer cases of asthma symptoms
* 48,000 fewer missed school days
* 57,000 fewer lost workdays
20 See note 9
19 EPA. (Last updated 2024, April 25). Biden-Harris Administration finalizes suite of standards to reduce pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants.
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-suite-standards-reduce-pollution-fossil-fuel 18 EPA. (Last updated 2025, June 6). Fast facts on transportation greenhouse gas emissions. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions 17 EPA. (Last updated 2025, May 6). Greenhouse gas reporting program (GHGRP): GHGRP power plants. https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgrp-power-plants 16 Evans, H., (2024, December 21). Arizona weather wrapped: A broken record of broken records in Phoenix during 2024, Arizona Republic. AZ Central.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-weather/2024/12/21/phoenix-az-weather-breaks-records-2024/77089660007/ 15 WBTV. (2025, March 20). Helene was deadliest hurricane since Katrina, new report says (reporting the National Hurricane Center final report on Hurricane Helene, September 2024).
https://www.wbtv.com/2025/03/20/helene-was-deadliest-hurricane-since-katrina-new-reports-says
14 FOX 11 Los Angeles. California wildfires: A haunting look back on the night the flames first erupted in Los Angeles (reporting Cal Fire final report figures for the Eaton and Palisades fires, January 2025). https://www.foxla.com/news/california-wildfires-gallery-one-year-later
13 NBC News. (2025, July). Texas floods: Flash flooding in the Hill Country kills more than 100 people.
https://www.nbcnews.com/weather/floods/texas-floods-flash-where-storms-national-weather-service-what-know-rcna217214 12 NASA Earth Observatory. 2024 was the warmest year on record. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/153806/2024-was-the-warmest-year-on-record 11 Fifth National Climate Assessment (2023). Chapter 15: Human health. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH15 EPA has now repealed most of these standards in a separate final rule,21and this proposal would remove the rest and take away the legal basis for any future federal standards on power plant climate pollution.
EPA also argues that even eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. power sector would have only a minimal effect on global temperature and sea level rise.22 This ignores that these standards also cut particle pollution and nitrogen oxides that harm people's lungs and hearts right now, whatever the effect on global temperature.23
EPA was established by President Nixon in 1970 and the agency's mission is to protect human health and the environment.24 This proposal is in direct contrast to that mission, as well as to Administrator Zeldin's own stated goal that "every American should have access to clean air, land and water."25 Dismantling protections against the pollution that causes climate change, such as power plant standards, does not align with the mission of EPA.
EPA's economic analysis for this proposal counts only the compliance cost savings to industry. It does not estimate what the repeal would do to people's health.26 Leaving out the health impact turns away from EPA's mission, and it puts profit ahead of human lives.
We also do not believe that EPA is providing enough time and opportunity for people to respond. EPA released this proposal on the same day as a separate final rule repealing most of the 2024 standards, and gave the public roughly 45 days to comment and two days of virtual hearings.27 We ask the EPA to extend the comment period so that more people can take part in a meaningful way.
With the 2024 health protections in place, fewer children will suffer asthma attacks and fewer people will die prematurely due to air pollution. These standards are not just regulatory red tape. In 2035 alone, they were projected to save more than a thousand lives. No one should have to worry about a tomorrow that 27 See 91 Fed. Reg. at 59002 (comments due November 2, 2026; virtual public hearing on October 1, 2026). The concurrent final rule was also published on September 17, 2026.
26 U.S. EPA. (2026, September 11). Economic impact analysis for the supplemental proposed rule, Rescission of the greenhouse gas findings for fossil fuel-fired power plants and repeal of regulations for power plant greenhouse gas emissions under Clean Air Act section 111 (Memorandum to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124).
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-09/utilities_eia_proposed_rescission_and_repeal_2026-09.pdf 25 EPA. (2025, Feb 4). EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announces EPA's "powering the Great American Comeback" initiative.
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-lee-zeldin-announces-epas-powering-great-american-comeback 24 U.S. EPA. Our mission and what we do. https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do 23 See note 9.
22 See 91 Fed. Reg. at 59006 (proposing that eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. power sector would have no more than a de minimis impact on global mean surface temperature and sea level rise).
21 U.S. EPA. (2026, September 17). Partial repeal of the carbon pollution standards for fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (Final rule). Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/17/2026-19071/partial-repeal-of-the-carbon-pollution-standards-for-fossil-fuel-fired-electric-generating-units keeps looking uncertain, no one should be scared to go for a walk because they are compromising their health, and no profit or industry should ever matter more than the preciousness of human life.
ANHE urges EPA to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2024 greenhouse gas standards for fossil fuel power plants in place, to protect our climate, our communities, and current and future generations.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our perspective and input on this process.
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-3112
October 30th, 2026
Lee Zeldin, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
William J. Clinton Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Findings for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants and Repeal of Regulations for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under Clean Air Act Section 111 (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124)
Dear Administrator Zeldin:
The Alliance of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 30th, 2026 Lee Zeldin, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency William J. Clinton Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Re: Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Findings for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants and Repeal of Regulations for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under Clean Air Act Section 111 (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124) Dear Administrator Zeldin: The Alliance ofNurses for Healthy Environments (ANHE), the only national nursing organization focused solely on the intersection of health and the environment, appreciates the opportunity to provide comments.ANHE strongly opposes EPA's proposed repeal of the greenhouse gas standards for fossil fuel power plants.1
In this proposal, EPA claims that the Clean Air Act does not allow it to regulate power plants in response to global climate change concerns.2 If finalized, EPA would rescind its earlier findings and repeal all remaining greenhouse gas standards for power plants. This follows EPA's February 2026 decision to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding,3 which concluded that climate change endangers public health and welfare for current and future generations. Rescinding that finding set aside the federal government's own scientific conclusion about the danger of climate pollution, and this proposal would extend the same approach to power plants. Further, while climate change is a global problem, pollution from power plants harms Americans across the country and EPA has an obligation to reduce emissions that contribute significantly to human health harms.
3 U.S. EPA. (2026, February 18). Rescission of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding and motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards under the Clean Air Act. 91 Fed. Reg. 7686.
2 See 91 Fed. Reg. at 59002 (summary) and 59005 to 59006 (executive summary)
1 U.S. EPA. (2026, September 17). Rescission of the greenhouse gas findings for fossil fuel-fired power plants and repeal of regulations for power plant greenhouse gas emissions under Clean Air Act section 111 (Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking). 91 Fed. Reg. 59002. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/17/2026-19072/rescission-of-the-greenhouse-gas-findings-for-fossil-fuel-fired-power-plants-and-repeal-of We urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw this proposal. Countless court rulings4 and evidence produced in thousands of studies have confirmed that climate change, fueled by climate pollution, is causing devastating impacts on people's lives.5 In the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case of Massachusetts v. EPA,6 the Court determined that greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change are clearly air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This case has not been overruled. EPA relies on later decisions, but none of them overturned it.7
Congress wrote the Clean Air Act so that EPA can regulate sources that contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The Act includes climate in its definition of welfare8. By choosing to repeal the greenhouse gas standards for power plants, EPA is ignoring both the science and the court precedent that confirm its responsibility to protect people from pollution.
The congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment,9 incorporating the expertise of over 400 scientists, has consistently found with overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating climate change, that the global warming experienced over the industrial era is unequivocally caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, and that the US is warming faster than the global average.
Climate change is already harming the health of people in every region of the country. Wildfire smoke and worsening air quality are harming breathing and heart health.10 Everyone is affected, whether rich or 10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Climate and health: Wildfires (web page). https://www.cdc.gov/climate-health/php/effects/wildfires.html; Fifth National Climate Assessment (2023). Chapter 14: Air quality. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH14
9 Fifth National Climate Assessment (2023). https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/; The White House. (2023, November 9). Fact sheet: Fifth national climate assessment details impacts of climate change on regions across the United States.
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ostp/news-updates/2023/11/09/fact-sheet-fifth-national-climate-assessment-details-impacts-of-climate-change-on-regions-across-the-united-states/ 8 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7411(b)(1)(A) (sources that cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare); 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7602(h) (language referring to effects on welfare includes effects on weather and climate).
7 EPA relies on West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014). See 91 Fed. Reg. at 59005 and 59014. The latter decision stated that Massachusetts does not foreclose the use of statutory context in reading the Act. It did not overrule it.
6 Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 528 to 529 (2007).
5 IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
[H.-O. Portner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegria, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Loschke, V. Moller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056 pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844
4 Doniger, D. (2025, Feb 26). Can Trump reverse the climate endangerment finding? Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/david-doniger/can-trump-reverse-climate-endangerment-finding
poor, but some people face greater risk, including children, older adults, outdoor workers, people with health conditions, low-wealth communities, and communities of color.11
As nurses we see, on a daily basis, the devastating impacts of climate change, including extreme weather and warmer temperatures. With 2024 being the world's hottest year on record12 and with communities still grappling with the impacts of catastrophic climate disasters like the flash flooding in Texas,13 fires in Los Angeles,14 the hurricane flooding in North Carolina,15and 143 straight days16 of over 100 degree heat in Phoenix, this proposal is both shocking and dangerous to human health and well being.
Power plants are one of the largest sources of climate pollution in the country. Coal and gas fired power plants are responsible for about 25% of climate pollution in the U.S.,17 second only to transportation, which accounts for 28%.18 EPA's 2024 suite of rules to address greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power plants was projected to avoid 1.38 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through 2047, which is nearly an entire year of emissions from the U.S. power sector,19 along with tens of thousands of tons of fine particle pollution, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. EPA projected up to $370 billion in net climate and public health benefits between 2024 and 2047.20 In 2035 alone, the standards were projected to deliver the following health benefits:
* 1,200 avoided premature deaths
* 1,900 avoided cases of new asthma
* 360,000 fewer cases of asthma symptoms
* 48,000 fewer missed school days
* 57,000 fewer lost workdays
20 See note 9
19 EPA. (Last updated 2024, April 25). Biden-Harris Administration finalizes suite of standards to reduce pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants.
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-suite-standards-reduce-pollution-fossil-fuel 18 EPA. (Last updated 2025, June 6). Fast facts on transportation greenhouse gas emissions. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions 17 EPA. (Last updated 2025, May 6). Greenhouse gas reporting program (GHGRP): GHGRP power plants. https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgrp-power-plants 16 Evans, H., (2024, December 21). Arizona weather wrapped: A broken record of broken records in Phoenix during 2024, Arizona Republic. AZ Central.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-weather/2024/12/21/phoenix-az-weather-breaks-records-2024/77089660007/ 15 WBTV. (2025, March 20). Helene was deadliest hurricane since Katrina, new report says (reporting the National Hurricane Center final report on Hurricane Helene, September 2024).
https://www.wbtv.com/2025/03/20/helene-was-deadliest-hurricane-since-katrina-new-reports-says
14 FOX 11 Los Angeles. California wildfires: A haunting look back on the night the flames first erupted in Los Angeles (reporting Cal Fire final report figures for the Eaton and Palisades fires, January 2025). https://www.foxla.com/news/california-wildfires-gallery-one-year-later
13 NBC News. (2025, July). Texas floods: Flash flooding in the Hill Country kills more than 100 people.
https://www.nbcnews.com/weather/floods/texas-floods-flash-where-storms-national-weather-service-what-know-rcna217214 12 NASA Earth Observatory. 2024 was the warmest year on record. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/153806/2024-was-the-warmest-year-on-record 11 Fifth National Climate Assessment (2023). Chapter 15: Human health. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH15 EPA has now repealed most of these standards in a separate final rule,21and this proposal would remove the rest and take away the legal basis for any future federal standards on power plant climate pollution.
EPA also argues that even eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. power sector would have only a minimal effect on global temperature and sea level rise.22 This ignores that these standards also cut particle pollution and nitrogen oxides that harm people's lungs and hearts right now, whatever the effect on global temperature.23
EPA was established by President Nixon in 1970 and the agency's mission is to protect human health and the environment.24 This proposal is in direct contrast to that mission, as well as to Administrator Zeldin's own stated goal that "every American should have access to clean air, land and water."25 Dismantling protections against the pollution that causes climate change, such as power plant standards, does not align with the mission of EPA.
EPA's economic analysis for this proposal counts only the compliance cost savings to industry. It does not estimate what the repeal would do to people's health.26 Leaving out the health impact turns away from EPA's mission, and it puts profit ahead of human lives.
We also do not believe that EPA is providing enough time and opportunity for people to respond. EPA released this proposal on the same day as a separate final rule repealing most of the 2024 standards, and gave the public roughly 45 days to comment and two days of virtual hearings.27 We ask the EPA to extend the comment period so that more people can take part in a meaningful way.
With the 2024 health protections in place, fewer children will suffer asthma attacks and fewer people will die prematurely due to air pollution. These standards are not just regulatory red tape. In 2035 alone, they were projected to save more than a thousand lives. No one should have to worry about a tomorrow that 27 See 91 Fed. Reg. at 59002 (comments due November 2, 2026; virtual public hearing on October 1, 2026). The concurrent final rule was also published on September 17, 2026.
26 U.S. EPA. (2026, September 11). Economic impact analysis for the supplemental proposed rule, Rescission of the greenhouse gas findings for fossil fuel-fired power plants and repeal of regulations for power plant greenhouse gas emissions under Clean Air Act section 111 (Memorandum to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124).
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-09/utilities_eia_proposed_rescission_and_repeal_2026-09.pdf 25 EPA. (2025, Feb 4). EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announces EPA's "powering the Great American Comeback" initiative.
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-lee-zeldin-announces-epas-powering-great-american-comeback 24 U.S. EPA. Our mission and what we do. https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do 23 See note 9.
22 See 91 Fed. Reg. at 59006 (proposing that eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. power sector would have no more than a de minimis impact on global mean surface temperature and sea level rise).
21 U.S. EPA. (2026, September 17). Partial repeal of the carbon pollution standards for fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (Final rule). Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/17/2026-19071/partial-repeal-of-the-carbon-pollution-standards-for-fossil-fuel-fired-electric-generating-units keeps looking uncertain, no one should be scared to go for a walk because they are compromising their health, and no profit or industry should ever matter more than the preciousness of human life.
ANHE urges EPA to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2024 greenhouse gas standards for fossil fuel power plants in place, to protect our climate, our communities, and current and future generations.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our perspective and input on this process.
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-3112
AdvaMed Urges FDA to Apply Risk-Based Criteria to Class I Accessory Classifications Instead of Excluding Device-Specific Accessories
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
October 16, 2026
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Re: Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224 -- Medical Devices; Classification of Accessories Distinct From Other Devices; Proposed List of Accessories Suitable for Class I; Request for Comments
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Advanced Medical Technology Association ("AdvaMed") appreciates the opportunity ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 16, 2026 Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20993 Re: Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224 -- Medical Devices; Classification of Accessories Distinct From Other Devices; Proposed List of Accessories Suitable for Class I; Request for Comments Dear Sir/Madam, The Advanced Medical Technology Association ("AdvaMed") appreciates the opportunityto provide comments on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) notice titled Medical Devices; Classification of Accessories Distinct from Other Devices; Proposed List of Accessories Suitable for Class I; Request for Comments, published on August 17, 2026 ("2026 Notice").1 AdvaMed(R), The Medtech Association, is the world's largest association representing manufacturers of medical devices, diagnostic products, and other medical technology.
AdvaMed's member companies produce innovations that transform healthcare through earlier disease detection, less invasive procedures and more effective treatments. AdvaMed has more than 600 member companies, ranging from the largest to the smallest medical technology innovators and manufacturers.
We thank FDA for considering our prior comments submitted to this docket,2 including our recommendations for the proposed accessories list. We support FDA's proposed classifications identified in Table 1 of the 2026 Notice.
AdvaMed has both general and specific comments as discussed below.
1 91 Fed. Reg. 53,205 (Aug. 17, 2026).
2 AdvaMed, Comment Letter on CDRH Seeks Public Comment: Identifying Accessories Suitable for Distinct Classification as Class I Devices, Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224 (Mar. 5, 2026), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FDA-2025-N-6224-0010.
FDA Dockets Management Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224
October 16, 2026
Page 2 of 10
I. GENERAL COMMENTS
The 2026 Notice states that "device-specific accessories" are "not generally eligible" for distinct classification into Class I through FDA's periodic Class I list process under section 513(f)(6)(D)(i), because FDA considers design and development controls important to ensuring compatibility between the accessory and its parent device or system.3 This general presumption excludes accessories based on their design relationship with a parent device, not on the accessory's risks and controls necessary to address them, as required by section 513(f)(6)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FD&C Act"). FDA should evaluate device-specific accessories under the same risk-based factors it applies to other accessories.
The FD&C Act establishes a classification framework based on device risks and the regulatory controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Specifically, under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act, Class I devices are those devices for which the general controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device; or those devices for which insufficient information exists to determine that general controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness or to establish special controls to provide such assurance, but because the devices are not purported or represented to be for a use in supporting or sustaining human life or for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, and do not present a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury, are to be regulated by general controls.4
FDA defines a device accessory as "[a] finished device that is intended to support, supplement, and/or augment the performance of one or more parent devices."5 Section 513(f)(6)(A) expressly requires classification according to the accessory's risks when used as intended and the level of controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, notwithstanding the classification of the device with which it is intended to be used.6
FDA considers three factors in determining whether an accessory is suitable for distinct classification: (1) the accessory is neither for supporting or sustaining human life nor for a use of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health; (2) it does not present a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury; and (3) general controls alone would provide reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness.7
We appreciate that section III of the 2026 Notice restates the three factors FDA considers for distinct classification into Class I, consistent with the factors FDA proposed in 2018 and adopted 3 91 Fed. Reg. at 53,207.
4 Section 513(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act; 21 U.S.C. Sec. 360c(a)(1)(A).
5 U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Medical Device Accessories - Describing Accessories and Classification Pathways: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff, at 5 (Dec. 20, 2017) ("Accessories Guidance").
6 Section 513(f)(6)(A), (C), (D)(ii) of the FD&C Act; 21 U.S.C. Sec. 360c(f)(6)(A), (C), (D)(ii).
7 84 Fed. Reg. 14,865, 14,865 (Apr. 12, 2019); 91 Fed. Reg. at 53,207.
FDA Dockets Management Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224
October 16, 2026
Page 3 of 10
in its 2019 final action.8 However, FDA's webpage9 for this action lists four factors, adding design controls as a separate fourth factor, as our prior comments noted.10 We ask FDA to update the webpage to reflect the three factors in the 2026 Notice and the 2019 final action, so that the factors are described consistently.
Section III of the 2026 Notice also states that an accessory that is not automated with computer software but would require design controls is not eligible for distinct classification through this process.11 We ask FDA to confirm in the final action that design controls are not an independent eligibility criterion. Whether an accessory needs design controls is part of the third factor (i.e., whether general controls alone are sufficient), as FDA's webpage itself recognizes.12 That question should be answered based on the risks of each accessory type.
The same principle applies to device-specific accessories. An accessory's compatibility with its parent device is relevant to its risks, and FDA may consider it under the three factors. As discussed below, however, device specificity alone does not establish that general controls are insufficient; Congress required FDA to classify each accessory based on its own risks, not on its design relationship to a parent device; and the proposed exclusion is inconsistent with FDA's prior accessory classifications.
A. Device Specificity Alone Does Not Establish General Controls Are Insufficient
We recognize that FDA may classify accessories by type without reviewing each product individually. That classification must nevertheless reflect the risks of each accessory type and the controls necessary to address them. Section 513(f)(6)(A) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to classify an accessory based on its risks when used as intended and the level of regulatory controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, notwithstanding the parent device's classification.
The proposed definition of "device-specific accessories" covers accessories with differing functions, intended uses, and consequences of failure. The 2026 Notice does not identify a common risk profile across these accessory types or adequately explain why general controls would be insufficient to address their risks. Unique dimensions, geometry, or deployment characteristics may inform the assessment of compatibility risks, but do not, by themselves, establish the need for controls beyond general controls. The consequences of incompatibility also vary. A dimensional mismatch, for example, may prevent an accessory from being connected or used, delay a procedure, or adversely affect the performance of the parent device. These 8 FDA proposed these factors for public comment in 2018 and adopted them in its 2019 final classification action after considering the comments received. 83 Fed. Reg. 41,023, 41,024 (Aug. 17, 2018); 84 Fed. Reg. at 14,865.
9 U.S. Food & Drug Admin., CDRH Issues Proposed List of Accessories Suitable for Distinct Classification as Devices (last updated Aug. 26, 2026), https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/classify-your-medical-device/cdrhissues-proposed-list-accessories-suitable-distinct-classification-devices.
10 AdvaMed, Comment Letter on Proposed List of Accessories Suitable for Class I, Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224 (Mar. 5, 2026), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FDA-2025-N-6224-0010.
11 91 Fed. Reg. at 53,207.
12 U.S. Food & Drug Admin., supra note 9 (listing design controls "[a]s part of considering general controls").
FDA Dockets Management Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224
October 16, 2026
Page 4 of 10
outcomes can present materially different risks. The resulting risk may also depend on several factors, including the clinical setting, whether the failure is detectable before use, and whether a compatible alternative is available.
Section V. B. of the Accessories Guidance provides for evaluation of the risks arising from the accessory's impact on the parent device and its independent risks, without automatically attributing all parent device risks to the accessory.13 In its response to Comment 4 in the 2019 final action, FDA expressly agreed that the "classification of existing accessories should and must be based upon the risk of the accessory when used as intended and the level of regulatory controls necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the accessory."14 The 2026 Notice's proposed policy of presuming accessories ineligible for distinct classification based on device-specific design alone is inconsistent with the Accessories Guidance and with FDA's response to Comment 4 in the 2019 final action. This proposed policy substitutes a design characteristic for the assessment of accessory risks and necessary regulatory controls.
FDA's "design and development controls" rationale does not substitute for that missing assessment. Under the FD&C Act, an accessory's risk profile, not its quality management system obligations, determines its classification. Design and development requirements are part of the good manufacturing practice requirements under section 520(f) of the FD&C Act, which are general controls under section 513(a)(1)(A). Under 21 C.F.R. Sec. 820.10(c), these requirements already apply to certain Class I devices, including those automated with computer software. The need for them therefore does not, by itself, preclude Class I classification. We recognize that extending design and development requirements to additional Class I accessory types would require amending 21 C.F.R. Sec. 820.10(c) through rulemaking. Where FDA finds these requirements necessary for a particular accessory type, it should consider that action rather than treat the current scope of 21 C.F.R. Sec. 820.10(c) as a limit on the classification process Congress established.
FDA should also distinguish the need to manufacture an accessory to defined specifications from the need for formal design and development controls. In its response to Comment 14 in the 2019 final action, FDA recognized that devices generally have technical specifications, while explaining the particular concern with precise placement of orthopedic implants.15 Extending that rationale across medical specialties requires an assessment showing the additional accessory types present risks warranting those requirements.
If FDA retains a presumption of ineligibility for distinct classification into Class I based on device specificity alone, the final action should identify the affected accessory types and their relevant risks, apply FDA's three classification factors, and explain why general controls would not provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Device specificity should inform that assessment, not substitute for it.
13 Accessories Guidance at 8.
14 84 Fed. Reg. at 14,866 (emphasis added).
15 84 Fed. Reg. at 14,868 (response to Comment 14).
FDA Dockets Management Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224
October 16, 2026
Page 5 of 10
B. Congress Mandated Classifying Each Accessory Based on Its Own Risk, Not on Its Design Relationship to a Parent Device
Congress has twice directed FDA to classify accessories independently of the classification of the device with which they are intended to be used. Section 3060(c) of the 21st Century Cures Act added section 513(b)(9), which required FDA to classify an accessory based on its intended use, notwithstanding the classification of any other device with which it is intended to be used.16 Section 707 of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 ("FDARA") subsequently struck section 513(b)(9) and added section 513(f)(6).17 Section 513(f)(6)(A) directs FDA to classify an accessory "based on the risks of the accessory when used as intended" and the level of regulatory controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the accessory's safety and effectiveness, again notwithstanding the classification of any other device with which the accessory is intended to be used.
The revision under FDARA is significant. An accessory's intended use necessarily encompasses its use with one or more parent devices. FDARA replaced the intended use requirement with an express standard based on the accessory's risks when used as intended and the controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Thus, the statute requires FDA to evaluate the accessory's own risks and necessary controls, notwithstanding the classification of the device with which it is intended to be used. The accessory's relationship to the parent device may inform that analysis, but it cannot substitute for it.
Further, Congress titled section 707 of FDARA "Risk-Based Classification of Accessories." Congress also built the classification procedures around accessories reviewed with a parent device. Section 513(f)(6)(C) allows a sponsor to request distinct classification of an accessory included in a parent device's PMA or 510(k) at the time of filing if the accessory has not already been distinctly classified. Section 513(f)(6)(D) applies to accessories already granted marketing authorization as part of a PMA, 510(k), or De Novo submission for the device with which they are intended to be used. An accessory designed for and authorized with a particular parent device falls within the scope of section 513(f)(6)(D), which specifically addresses accessories granted marketing authorization as part of a submission for another device.
Nothing in this statutory framework conditions Class I eligibility on whether an accessory is designed independently of its parent device. Unique dimensions, geometry, or deployment characteristics may be relevant to an accessory's risk profile, but section 513(f)(6)(A) requires FDA to assess each accessory type's risks and the controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. The 2026 Notice recognizes that standard. Yet by treating device-specific accessories as not generally eligible, it excludes an entire category based on its design relationship to a parent device. That ties the accessory's classification back to its parent, contrary to Congress's direction to classify accessories notwithstanding the classification of the 16 21st Century Cures Act, Pub. L. No. 114-255, div. A, Sec. 3060(c), 130 Stat. 1033, 1133 (2016).
17 FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-52, Sec. 707(a)-(b), 131 Stat. 1005, 1060-62 (2017); 21 U.S.C. Sec. 360c(f)(6)(A).
FDA Dockets Management Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224
October 16, 2026
Page 6 of 10
device with which they are intended to be used. FDA should evaluate device-specific accessories under the same risk-based factors it applies to other accessories or, at a minimum, explain how the presumption is consistent with section 513(f)(6)(A).
C. The Proposed Exclusion Is Inconsistent with FDA's Prior Accessory Classifications
The 2026 Notice does not explain how the proposed exclusionary presumption is consistent with FDA's prior accessory classification determinations.18 FDA may distinguish accessory types based on relevant differences in intended use, risks, and necessary regulatory controls. However, it must treat materially similar cases consistently or explain the relevant distinctions and provide a reasoned explanation for any departure from its prior approach.19
FDA's own classification determinations show that an accessory's design relationship with a parent device does not, by itself, make general controls insufficient. For example, FDA classified into Class I the PASCAL Stabilizer Rail System and Table, an accessory intended to position and stabilize the catheters of a specific implant system. FDA identified risks including procedural delays if the accessory does not perform as intended dimensionally or functionally, yet concluded that general controls were sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.20 The 2019 final action, which the 2026 Notice cites as the basis for its devicespecific presumption, likewise classified a corneal inlay inserter handle, an accessory to the inserter for a Class III implant, into Class I.21
The 2026 Notice itself proposes Class I classification for accessories that attach to, or connect with, a parent device or system. These include cables connecting implantable pacemaker systems to "compatible external equipment," ECMO oxygenator mounting brackets, and detachable suction sleeves attached to smoke-evacuating monopolar pencils.22 For each, FDA proposes to find general controls sufficient, even as it presumes that device-specific accessories are generally ineligible. FDA should explain how these proposed classifications are consistent with that general presumption, or evaluate device-specific accessories under the same risk-based factors it applies to other accessories.
18 See, e.g., U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Medical Device Accessory Classification Request Granting Decisions (last updated Apr. 25, 2023), https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/classify-your-medical-device/medical-deviceaccessory-classification-request-granting-decisions.
19 See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221-22 (2016) (an agency changing position must provide a reasoned explanation and display awareness of the change); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42-43 (1983) (an agency changing course must supply a reasoned analysis); Westar Energy, Inc. v. FERC, 473 F.3d 1239, 1241 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (an agency must treat like cases alike or point to a relevant distinction).
20 U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Accessory Classification Order Q230131, at 1-2 (Apr. 13, 2023); 21 C.F.R. Sec. 870.3955.
21 84 Fed. Reg. at 14,868 (response to Comment 17), 14,870 (codified at 21 C.F.R. Sec. 886.4355).
22 91 Fed. Reg. at 53,208 tbl. 1 (accessories currently classified under 21 C.F.R. Sec.Sec. 870.3610, 870.4100, 878.4400).
FDA Dockets Management Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224
October 16, 2026
Page 7 of 10
II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS
AdvaMed's specific comments are attached in tabular form below and include detailed recommendations along with our specific rationale to assist FDA as it works to assess these comments.
AdvaMed appreciates the opportunity to provide comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 202-434-7208 or ALoloei@advamed.org if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Ana Loloei, J.D.
Vice President
Technology & Regulatory Affairs
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FDA-2025-N-6224-0017
October 16, 2026
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Re: Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224 -- Medical Devices; Classification of Accessories Distinct From Other Devices; Proposed List of Accessories Suitable for Class I; Request for Comments
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Advanced Medical Technology Association ("AdvaMed") appreciates the opportunity ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 16, 2026 Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20993 Re: Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224 -- Medical Devices; Classification of Accessories Distinct From Other Devices; Proposed List of Accessories Suitable for Class I; Request for Comments Dear Sir/Madam, The Advanced Medical Technology Association ("AdvaMed") appreciates the opportunityto provide comments on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) notice titled Medical Devices; Classification of Accessories Distinct from Other Devices; Proposed List of Accessories Suitable for Class I; Request for Comments, published on August 17, 2026 ("2026 Notice").1 AdvaMed(R), The Medtech Association, is the world's largest association representing manufacturers of medical devices, diagnostic products, and other medical technology.
AdvaMed's member companies produce innovations that transform healthcare through earlier disease detection, less invasive procedures and more effective treatments. AdvaMed has more than 600 member companies, ranging from the largest to the smallest medical technology innovators and manufacturers.
We thank FDA for considering our prior comments submitted to this docket,2 including our recommendations for the proposed accessories list. We support FDA's proposed classifications identified in Table 1 of the 2026 Notice.
AdvaMed has both general and specific comments as discussed below.
1 91 Fed. Reg. 53,205 (Aug. 17, 2026).
2 AdvaMed, Comment Letter on CDRH Seeks Public Comment: Identifying Accessories Suitable for Distinct Classification as Class I Devices, Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224 (Mar. 5, 2026), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FDA-2025-N-6224-0010.
FDA Dockets Management Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224
October 16, 2026
Page 2 of 10
I. GENERAL COMMENTS
The 2026 Notice states that "device-specific accessories" are "not generally eligible" for distinct classification into Class I through FDA's periodic Class I list process under section 513(f)(6)(D)(i), because FDA considers design and development controls important to ensuring compatibility between the accessory and its parent device or system.3 This general presumption excludes accessories based on their design relationship with a parent device, not on the accessory's risks and controls necessary to address them, as required by section 513(f)(6)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FD&C Act"). FDA should evaluate device-specific accessories under the same risk-based factors it applies to other accessories.
The FD&C Act establishes a classification framework based on device risks and the regulatory controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Specifically, under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act, Class I devices are those devices for which the general controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device; or those devices for which insufficient information exists to determine that general controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness or to establish special controls to provide such assurance, but because the devices are not purported or represented to be for a use in supporting or sustaining human life or for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, and do not present a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury, are to be regulated by general controls.4
FDA defines a device accessory as "[a] finished device that is intended to support, supplement, and/or augment the performance of one or more parent devices."5 Section 513(f)(6)(A) expressly requires classification according to the accessory's risks when used as intended and the level of controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, notwithstanding the classification of the device with which it is intended to be used.6
FDA considers three factors in determining whether an accessory is suitable for distinct classification: (1) the accessory is neither for supporting or sustaining human life nor for a use of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health; (2) it does not present a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury; and (3) general controls alone would provide reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness.7
We appreciate that section III of the 2026 Notice restates the three factors FDA considers for distinct classification into Class I, consistent with the factors FDA proposed in 2018 and adopted 3 91 Fed. Reg. at 53,207.
4 Section 513(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act; 21 U.S.C. Sec. 360c(a)(1)(A).
5 U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Medical Device Accessories - Describing Accessories and Classification Pathways: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff, at 5 (Dec. 20, 2017) ("Accessories Guidance").
6 Section 513(f)(6)(A), (C), (D)(ii) of the FD&C Act; 21 U.S.C. Sec. 360c(f)(6)(A), (C), (D)(ii).
7 84 Fed. Reg. 14,865, 14,865 (Apr. 12, 2019); 91 Fed. Reg. at 53,207.
FDA Dockets Management Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224
October 16, 2026
Page 3 of 10
in its 2019 final action.8 However, FDA's webpage9 for this action lists four factors, adding design controls as a separate fourth factor, as our prior comments noted.10 We ask FDA to update the webpage to reflect the three factors in the 2026 Notice and the 2019 final action, so that the factors are described consistently.
Section III of the 2026 Notice also states that an accessory that is not automated with computer software but would require design controls is not eligible for distinct classification through this process.11 We ask FDA to confirm in the final action that design controls are not an independent eligibility criterion. Whether an accessory needs design controls is part of the third factor (i.e., whether general controls alone are sufficient), as FDA's webpage itself recognizes.12 That question should be answered based on the risks of each accessory type.
The same principle applies to device-specific accessories. An accessory's compatibility with its parent device is relevant to its risks, and FDA may consider it under the three factors. As discussed below, however, device specificity alone does not establish that general controls are insufficient; Congress required FDA to classify each accessory based on its own risks, not on its design relationship to a parent device; and the proposed exclusion is inconsistent with FDA's prior accessory classifications.
A. Device Specificity Alone Does Not Establish General Controls Are Insufficient
We recognize that FDA may classify accessories by type without reviewing each product individually. That classification must nevertheless reflect the risks of each accessory type and the controls necessary to address them. Section 513(f)(6)(A) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to classify an accessory based on its risks when used as intended and the level of regulatory controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, notwithstanding the parent device's classification.
The proposed definition of "device-specific accessories" covers accessories with differing functions, intended uses, and consequences of failure. The 2026 Notice does not identify a common risk profile across these accessory types or adequately explain why general controls would be insufficient to address their risks. Unique dimensions, geometry, or deployment characteristics may inform the assessment of compatibility risks, but do not, by themselves, establish the need for controls beyond general controls. The consequences of incompatibility also vary. A dimensional mismatch, for example, may prevent an accessory from being connected or used, delay a procedure, or adversely affect the performance of the parent device. These 8 FDA proposed these factors for public comment in 2018 and adopted them in its 2019 final classification action after considering the comments received. 83 Fed. Reg. 41,023, 41,024 (Aug. 17, 2018); 84 Fed. Reg. at 14,865.
9 U.S. Food & Drug Admin., CDRH Issues Proposed List of Accessories Suitable for Distinct Classification as Devices (last updated Aug. 26, 2026), https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/classify-your-medical-device/cdrhissues-proposed-list-accessories-suitable-distinct-classification-devices.
10 AdvaMed, Comment Letter on Proposed List of Accessories Suitable for Class I, Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224 (Mar. 5, 2026), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FDA-2025-N-6224-0010.
11 91 Fed. Reg. at 53,207.
12 U.S. Food & Drug Admin., supra note 9 (listing design controls "[a]s part of considering general controls").
FDA Dockets Management Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224
October 16, 2026
Page 4 of 10
outcomes can present materially different risks. The resulting risk may also depend on several factors, including the clinical setting, whether the failure is detectable before use, and whether a compatible alternative is available.
Section V. B. of the Accessories Guidance provides for evaluation of the risks arising from the accessory's impact on the parent device and its independent risks, without automatically attributing all parent device risks to the accessory.13 In its response to Comment 4 in the 2019 final action, FDA expressly agreed that the "classification of existing accessories should and must be based upon the risk of the accessory when used as intended and the level of regulatory controls necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the accessory."14 The 2026 Notice's proposed policy of presuming accessories ineligible for distinct classification based on device-specific design alone is inconsistent with the Accessories Guidance and with FDA's response to Comment 4 in the 2019 final action. This proposed policy substitutes a design characteristic for the assessment of accessory risks and necessary regulatory controls.
FDA's "design and development controls" rationale does not substitute for that missing assessment. Under the FD&C Act, an accessory's risk profile, not its quality management system obligations, determines its classification. Design and development requirements are part of the good manufacturing practice requirements under section 520(f) of the FD&C Act, which are general controls under section 513(a)(1)(A). Under 21 C.F.R. Sec. 820.10(c), these requirements already apply to certain Class I devices, including those automated with computer software. The need for them therefore does not, by itself, preclude Class I classification. We recognize that extending design and development requirements to additional Class I accessory types would require amending 21 C.F.R. Sec. 820.10(c) through rulemaking. Where FDA finds these requirements necessary for a particular accessory type, it should consider that action rather than treat the current scope of 21 C.F.R. Sec. 820.10(c) as a limit on the classification process Congress established.
FDA should also distinguish the need to manufacture an accessory to defined specifications from the need for formal design and development controls. In its response to Comment 14 in the 2019 final action, FDA recognized that devices generally have technical specifications, while explaining the particular concern with precise placement of orthopedic implants.15 Extending that rationale across medical specialties requires an assessment showing the additional accessory types present risks warranting those requirements.
If FDA retains a presumption of ineligibility for distinct classification into Class I based on device specificity alone, the final action should identify the affected accessory types and their relevant risks, apply FDA's three classification factors, and explain why general controls would not provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Device specificity should inform that assessment, not substitute for it.
13 Accessories Guidance at 8.
14 84 Fed. Reg. at 14,866 (emphasis added).
15 84 Fed. Reg. at 14,868 (response to Comment 14).
FDA Dockets Management Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224
October 16, 2026
Page 5 of 10
B. Congress Mandated Classifying Each Accessory Based on Its Own Risk, Not on Its Design Relationship to a Parent Device
Congress has twice directed FDA to classify accessories independently of the classification of the device with which they are intended to be used. Section 3060(c) of the 21st Century Cures Act added section 513(b)(9), which required FDA to classify an accessory based on its intended use, notwithstanding the classification of any other device with which it is intended to be used.16 Section 707 of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 ("FDARA") subsequently struck section 513(b)(9) and added section 513(f)(6).17 Section 513(f)(6)(A) directs FDA to classify an accessory "based on the risks of the accessory when used as intended" and the level of regulatory controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the accessory's safety and effectiveness, again notwithstanding the classification of any other device with which the accessory is intended to be used.
The revision under FDARA is significant. An accessory's intended use necessarily encompasses its use with one or more parent devices. FDARA replaced the intended use requirement with an express standard based on the accessory's risks when used as intended and the controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Thus, the statute requires FDA to evaluate the accessory's own risks and necessary controls, notwithstanding the classification of the device with which it is intended to be used. The accessory's relationship to the parent device may inform that analysis, but it cannot substitute for it.
Further, Congress titled section 707 of FDARA "Risk-Based Classification of Accessories." Congress also built the classification procedures around accessories reviewed with a parent device. Section 513(f)(6)(C) allows a sponsor to request distinct classification of an accessory included in a parent device's PMA or 510(k) at the time of filing if the accessory has not already been distinctly classified. Section 513(f)(6)(D) applies to accessories already granted marketing authorization as part of a PMA, 510(k), or De Novo submission for the device with which they are intended to be used. An accessory designed for and authorized with a particular parent device falls within the scope of section 513(f)(6)(D), which specifically addresses accessories granted marketing authorization as part of a submission for another device.
Nothing in this statutory framework conditions Class I eligibility on whether an accessory is designed independently of its parent device. Unique dimensions, geometry, or deployment characteristics may be relevant to an accessory's risk profile, but section 513(f)(6)(A) requires FDA to assess each accessory type's risks and the controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. The 2026 Notice recognizes that standard. Yet by treating device-specific accessories as not generally eligible, it excludes an entire category based on its design relationship to a parent device. That ties the accessory's classification back to its parent, contrary to Congress's direction to classify accessories notwithstanding the classification of the 16 21st Century Cures Act, Pub. L. No. 114-255, div. A, Sec. 3060(c), 130 Stat. 1033, 1133 (2016).
17 FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-52, Sec. 707(a)-(b), 131 Stat. 1005, 1060-62 (2017); 21 U.S.C. Sec. 360c(f)(6)(A).
FDA Dockets Management Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224
October 16, 2026
Page 6 of 10
device with which they are intended to be used. FDA should evaluate device-specific accessories under the same risk-based factors it applies to other accessories or, at a minimum, explain how the presumption is consistent with section 513(f)(6)(A).
C. The Proposed Exclusion Is Inconsistent with FDA's Prior Accessory Classifications
The 2026 Notice does not explain how the proposed exclusionary presumption is consistent with FDA's prior accessory classification determinations.18 FDA may distinguish accessory types based on relevant differences in intended use, risks, and necessary regulatory controls. However, it must treat materially similar cases consistently or explain the relevant distinctions and provide a reasoned explanation for any departure from its prior approach.19
FDA's own classification determinations show that an accessory's design relationship with a parent device does not, by itself, make general controls insufficient. For example, FDA classified into Class I the PASCAL Stabilizer Rail System and Table, an accessory intended to position and stabilize the catheters of a specific implant system. FDA identified risks including procedural delays if the accessory does not perform as intended dimensionally or functionally, yet concluded that general controls were sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.20 The 2019 final action, which the 2026 Notice cites as the basis for its devicespecific presumption, likewise classified a corneal inlay inserter handle, an accessory to the inserter for a Class III implant, into Class I.21
The 2026 Notice itself proposes Class I classification for accessories that attach to, or connect with, a parent device or system. These include cables connecting implantable pacemaker systems to "compatible external equipment," ECMO oxygenator mounting brackets, and detachable suction sleeves attached to smoke-evacuating monopolar pencils.22 For each, FDA proposes to find general controls sufficient, even as it presumes that device-specific accessories are generally ineligible. FDA should explain how these proposed classifications are consistent with that general presumption, or evaluate device-specific accessories under the same risk-based factors it applies to other accessories.
18 See, e.g., U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Medical Device Accessory Classification Request Granting Decisions (last updated Apr. 25, 2023), https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/classify-your-medical-device/medical-deviceaccessory-classification-request-granting-decisions.
19 See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221-22 (2016) (an agency changing position must provide a reasoned explanation and display awareness of the change); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42-43 (1983) (an agency changing course must supply a reasoned analysis); Westar Energy, Inc. v. FERC, 473 F.3d 1239, 1241 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (an agency must treat like cases alike or point to a relevant distinction).
20 U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Accessory Classification Order Q230131, at 1-2 (Apr. 13, 2023); 21 C.F.R. Sec. 870.3955.
21 84 Fed. Reg. at 14,868 (response to Comment 17), 14,870 (codified at 21 C.F.R. Sec. 886.4355).
22 91 Fed. Reg. at 53,208 tbl. 1 (accessories currently classified under 21 C.F.R. Sec.Sec. 870.3610, 870.4100, 878.4400).
FDA Dockets Management Docket No. FDA-2025-N-6224
October 16, 2026
Page 7 of 10
II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS
AdvaMed's specific comments are attached in tabular form below and include detailed recommendations along with our specific rationale to assist FDA as it works to assess these comments.
AdvaMed appreciates the opportunity to provide comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 202-434-7208 or ALoloei@advamed.org if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Ana Loloei, J.D.
Vice President
Technology & Regulatory Affairs
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FDA-2025-N-6224-0017
2 Oregon State University School of Public Policy Professors Urge Census Bureau to Withdraw Proposed 2030 Residence and Demographic Changes
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
School of Public Policy
Oregon State University
2251 SW Campus Way
Corvallis, Oregon 97331-8600
360-305-6408
shawn.hazboun@oregonstate.edu
10/22/26
Subject: Comment on Proposed Changes to 2030 Census
To the U.S. Census Bureau:
We are professors in the School of Public Policy at Oregon State University. We are writing to comment on the proposed rule "Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. School of Public Policy Oregon State University 2251 SW Campus Way Corvallis, Oregon 97331-8600 360-305-6408 shawn.hazboun@oregonstate.edu 10/22/26 Subject: Comment on Proposed Changes to 2030 Census To the U.S. Census Bureau: We are professors in the School of Public Policy at Oregon State University. We are writing to comment on the proposed rule "Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; ProposedResidence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions" (Docket No. 260903-0005, Document 2026-18481, published September 10, 2026).
As social science researchers, we care about a fair and accurate census because we use these demographic data in our research. Many different types of researchers depend on the Census data, and we feel that many of the changes proposed will threaten the robustness of the decennial Census itself.
Specifically, we oppose both part 60 and part 70 of the proposed revisions. We urge the Census Bureau to withdraw the proposed rule and return with substantial revisions, including:
Abandon any criteria that would exclude U.S. residents, including visa-holders, refugees, asylum seekers, and others from the apportionment count. The purpose of the census is to count all people. Many of the people we work with at universities are faculty and students living temporarily in the U.S. while conducting research and while gaining an education. These people should be counted.
Reestablish guidelines for detailed residence situations that encompass the varied living arrangements present in the United States such as for people who have recently moved, people in temporary shelters, and children in foster care.
Return to activity-based criteria for residence, such as where someone usually lives and sleeps, rather than a confusing "one hour" rule.
Eliminate or substantially revise guidelines for the "enumeration period" so that people (including seasonal workers and recent movers) are counted in the right place on Census Day and so that people (such as children in foster care and people in emergency shelters) are not accidentally excluded from the count.
Drop the ban on demographic questions including race and ethnicity. The U.S. has asked about race in every census since our first in 1790. Information on race and ethnicity is critical for public health and civil rights enforcement and should not be banned. Instead, questions on race and ethnicity should be brought into compliance with the 2024 SPD 15 standards.
As written, the proposed rule would exclude residents, result in an inaccurate count, and prohibit collection of important data on the characteristics of our population. Such outcomes are unacceptable and would harm all Americans.
Last, we also urge the Census Bureau to extend the comment period until December 10, 2026 because we feel that such a significant regulatory action needs a full 90 days for the public to review and respond.
Sincerely,
Shawn Hazboun, Associate Professor
School of Public Policy
Oregon State University
Shawn.hazboun@oregonstate.edu
Hilary Boudet, Professor
School of Public Policy
Oregon State University
Hilary.boudet@oregonstate.edu
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USBC-2026-0628-98375
School of Public Policy
Oregon State University
2251 SW Campus Way
Corvallis, Oregon 97331-8600
360-305-6408
shawn.hazboun@oregonstate.edu
10/22/26
Subject: Comment on Proposed Changes to 2030 Census
To the U.S. Census Bureau:
We are professors in the School of Public Policy at Oregon State University. We are writing to comment on the proposed rule "Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. School of Public Policy Oregon State University 2251 SW Campus Way Corvallis, Oregon 97331-8600 360-305-6408 shawn.hazboun@oregonstate.edu 10/22/26 Subject: Comment on Proposed Changes to 2030 Census To the U.S. Census Bureau: We are professors in the School of Public Policy at Oregon State University. We are writing to comment on the proposed rule "Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; ProposedResidence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions" (Docket No. 260903-0005, Document 2026-18481, published September 10, 2026).
As social science researchers, we care about a fair and accurate census because we use these demographic data in our research. Many different types of researchers depend on the Census data, and we feel that many of the changes proposed will threaten the robustness of the decennial Census itself.
Specifically, we oppose both part 60 and part 70 of the proposed revisions. We urge the Census Bureau to withdraw the proposed rule and return with substantial revisions, including:
Abandon any criteria that would exclude U.S. residents, including visa-holders, refugees, asylum seekers, and others from the apportionment count. The purpose of the census is to count all people. Many of the people we work with at universities are faculty and students living temporarily in the U.S. while conducting research and while gaining an education. These people should be counted.
Reestablish guidelines for detailed residence situations that encompass the varied living arrangements present in the United States such as for people who have recently moved, people in temporary shelters, and children in foster care.
Return to activity-based criteria for residence, such as where someone usually lives and sleeps, rather than a confusing "one hour" rule.
Eliminate or substantially revise guidelines for the "enumeration period" so that people (including seasonal workers and recent movers) are counted in the right place on Census Day and so that people (such as children in foster care and people in emergency shelters) are not accidentally excluded from the count.
Drop the ban on demographic questions including race and ethnicity. The U.S. has asked about race in every census since our first in 1790. Information on race and ethnicity is critical for public health and civil rights enforcement and should not be banned. Instead, questions on race and ethnicity should be brought into compliance with the 2024 SPD 15 standards.
As written, the proposed rule would exclude residents, result in an inaccurate count, and prohibit collection of important data on the characteristics of our population. Such outcomes are unacceptable and would harm all Americans.
Last, we also urge the Census Bureau to extend the comment period until December 10, 2026 because we feel that such a significant regulatory action needs a full 90 days for the public to review and respond.
Sincerely,
Shawn Hazboun, Associate Professor
School of Public Policy
Oregon State University
Shawn.hazboun@oregonstate.edu
Hilary Boudet, Professor
School of Public Policy
Oregon State University
Hilary.boudet@oregonstate.edu
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USBC-2026-0628-98375