Public Comments on Proposed Federal Rules
Here's a look at public comments on proposed Federal Register rules
More Recent Headlines
Featured Stories
S.T.A.N.D. Up Minnesota Parents United Opposes Proposed Head Start Standards Changes Over Concerns About Child Safety and Family Engagement
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
From: khuliapringle@standupmpu.org
To: Deregulation (ACF)
Subject: Public Comment - Docket ACF-2026-0595 / RIN 0970-AD30
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 10:00:27 AM
Re: ACF-2026-0595 - Proposed Changes to the Head Start Program Performance Standards
S.T.A.N.D. Up Minnesota Parents United respectfully opposes proposed changes that would weaken Head Start requirements related to educational quality, teacher-child ratios, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. From: khuliapringle@standupmpu.org To: Deregulation (ACF) Subject: Public Comment - Docket ACF-2026-0595 / RIN 0970-AD30 Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 10:00:27 AM Re: ACF-2026-0595 - Proposed Changes to the Head Start Program Performance Standards S.T.A.N.D. Up Minnesota Parents United respectfully opposes proposed changes that would weaken Head Start requirements related to educational quality, teacher-child ratios,services for children with disabilities and dual-language learners, health and safety, and family engagement.
S.T.A.N.D. Up Minnesota Parents United is a grassroots, parent-led organization working with parents and caregivers most affected by prenatal-12th grade health and education disparities. We provide families with free, culturally responsive advocacy and work to ensure that parent and caregiver voices shape the policies affecting their children.
Head Start is often one of the first public systems families encounter. Its standards should build trust, protect children, and treat parents and caregivers as essential partners. Weakening these standards would disproportionately harm children from low-income households, immigrant and mixed-status families, multilingual families, children with disabilities, and families already facing barriers to health care and quality education.
We are particularly concerned about changes that could weaken:
Family engagement requirements. Parent and caregiver participation is not an unnecessary administrative burden. Families provide essential information about their children's development, language, disability-related needs, culture, health, and learning. Meaningful family engagement must remain a core requirement with clear accountability.
Services for children with disabilities. Head Start must continue identifying and supporting children with disabilities and working with families to secure appropriate evaluations, accommodations, and services. Removing or reducing these protections may delay intervention during a critical period of child development.
Support for dual-language learners. Children should not lose access to language-responsive instruction or be treated as deficient because they are developing English while maintaining a home language. Head Start programs need enforceable expectations for serving multilingual children and communicating effectively with their families.
Teacher-child ratios and educational quality. Safe staffing levels and appropriate ratios directly affect supervision, relationships, instruction, and children's physical and emotional safety. These protections should not be weakened.
Health and safety standards. Families must be able to trust that Head Start programs meet consistent requirements protecting children's health, well-being, and safety. These proposed changes arrive while immigrant and mixed-status families are already experiencing fear and confusion about accessing public services. Weakening Head Start protections could deepen that chilling effect and cause eligible children to lose developmental, educational, nutrition, health, and family-support services.
We urge the Administration for Children and Families to withdraw provisions that weaken Head Start standards. Any future revisions should strengthen educational quality, disability inclusion, language justice, family engagement, health and safety, and accountability. Parents and caregivers-especially those most affected-must have a meaningful role in developing and evaluating any changes.
Sincerely, S.T.A.N.D. Up Minnesota Parents United www.standupmpu.org khuliapringle@standupmpu.org
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ACF-2026-0595-19638
From: khuliapringle@standupmpu.org
To: Deregulation (ACF)
Subject: Public Comment - Docket ACF-2026-0595 / RIN 0970-AD30
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 10:00:27 AM
Re: ACF-2026-0595 - Proposed Changes to the Head Start Program Performance Standards
S.T.A.N.D. Up Minnesota Parents United respectfully opposes proposed changes that would weaken Head Start requirements related to educational quality, teacher-child ratios, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. From: khuliapringle@standupmpu.org To: Deregulation (ACF) Subject: Public Comment - Docket ACF-2026-0595 / RIN 0970-AD30 Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 10:00:27 AM Re: ACF-2026-0595 - Proposed Changes to the Head Start Program Performance Standards S.T.A.N.D. Up Minnesota Parents United respectfully opposes proposed changes that would weaken Head Start requirements related to educational quality, teacher-child ratios,services for children with disabilities and dual-language learners, health and safety, and family engagement.
S.T.A.N.D. Up Minnesota Parents United is a grassroots, parent-led organization working with parents and caregivers most affected by prenatal-12th grade health and education disparities. We provide families with free, culturally responsive advocacy and work to ensure that parent and caregiver voices shape the policies affecting their children.
Head Start is often one of the first public systems families encounter. Its standards should build trust, protect children, and treat parents and caregivers as essential partners. Weakening these standards would disproportionately harm children from low-income households, immigrant and mixed-status families, multilingual families, children with disabilities, and families already facing barriers to health care and quality education.
We are particularly concerned about changes that could weaken:
Family engagement requirements. Parent and caregiver participation is not an unnecessary administrative burden. Families provide essential information about their children's development, language, disability-related needs, culture, health, and learning. Meaningful family engagement must remain a core requirement with clear accountability.
Services for children with disabilities. Head Start must continue identifying and supporting children with disabilities and working with families to secure appropriate evaluations, accommodations, and services. Removing or reducing these protections may delay intervention during a critical period of child development.
Support for dual-language learners. Children should not lose access to language-responsive instruction or be treated as deficient because they are developing English while maintaining a home language. Head Start programs need enforceable expectations for serving multilingual children and communicating effectively with their families.
Teacher-child ratios and educational quality. Safe staffing levels and appropriate ratios directly affect supervision, relationships, instruction, and children's physical and emotional safety. These protections should not be weakened.
Health and safety standards. Families must be able to trust that Head Start programs meet consistent requirements protecting children's health, well-being, and safety. These proposed changes arrive while immigrant and mixed-status families are already experiencing fear and confusion about accessing public services. Weakening Head Start protections could deepen that chilling effect and cause eligible children to lose developmental, educational, nutrition, health, and family-support services.
We urge the Administration for Children and Families to withdraw provisions that weaken Head Start standards. Any future revisions should strengthen educational quality, disability inclusion, language justice, family engagement, health and safety, and accountability. Parents and caregivers-especially those most affected-must have a meaningful role in developing and evaluating any changes.
Sincerely, S.T.A.N.D. Up Minnesota Parents United www.standupmpu.org khuliapringle@standupmpu.org
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ACF-2026-0595-19638
Centrion Systems Urges SBA to Detail Impact of Proposed 1,000-Employee Standard on Wholesale Electronics Contractors
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
October 7, 2026
VIA REGULATIONS.GOV
Ryan Lambert, Associate Administrator
Office of Government Contracting and Business Development
U.S. Small Business Administration
409 Third Street, SW, Mail Code 6530
Washington, DC 20416
Re: Docket No. SBA-2026-0199
Supplemental Comment - Small Business Size Standards
Dear Mr. Lambert:
Centrion Systems, Inc. respectfully submits this supplemental comment concerning SBA's August ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 7, 2026 VIA REGULATIONS.GOV Ryan Lambert, Associate Administrator Office of Government Contracting and Business Development U.S. Small Business Administration 409 Third Street, SW, Mail Code 6530 Washington, DC 20416 Re: Docket No. SBA-2026-0199 Supplemental Comment - Small Business Size Standards Dear Mr. Lambert: Centrion Systems, Inc. respectfully submits this supplemental comment concerning SBA's August20, 2026 proposed size standards. This supplement is intended to add to, rather than repeat, our earlier comment.
Expanding Small Business eligibility can change who receives contracting opportunities even when reported Small Business spending remains unchanged. We ask SBA to explain whether admitting larger firms could concentrate those opportunities among fewer recipients, and what that would mean for existing smaller businesses and future entrants.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Why is the proposed 1,000-employee standard appropriate for each of the three industries within NAICS 4236?
2. What economic and Federal-market capacity do the 136 newly eligible NAICS 423690 firms represent, and what benefits would change given the separate 500-employee nonmanufacturer ceiling?
3. How were SBA's incoming-contractor estimates calculated, and how does the proposed-rule estimate of 37,002 firms relate to the later estimate of 4,000-6,000?
4. Which incoming contractors recently exceeded the existing standards, and which have remained active in Federal contracting for years afterward?
5. What supports SBA's prediction that Small Business awardee counts will not decline, and how did it evaluate concentration of awards?
6. Could agencies and prime contractors meet their Small Business goals while opportunities reach fewer, larger firms? How did SBA evaluate the effects on existing smaller socioeconomic firms, Native-owned firms and communities, and future entrants?
Centrion Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 36 | Arlington, Texas 76004
(817) 332-8290 | orders@centrion.com | www.centrion.com
Native American-Owned | Small Disadvantaged Business | Woman-Owned Small Business | SBA HUBZone | NAICS 423690
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 1 of 14
This comment examines the proposed standards, particularly NAICS 4236/423690, and the Federal-market capacity that would become newly eligible. Our companion comment on Docket SBA-2026-0265 addresses how the methodology evaluates those changes.
The proposed 1,000-employee general standard for NAICS 4236/423690 does not replace the separate 500-employee nonmanufacturer ceiling for covered Federal supply acquisitions. We support retaining that ceiling. Our questions concern the general standard's other effects, its fit for each industry, and the Federal-market capacity being reclassified.
We request the analysis needed to determine who becomes newly eligible, what benefits change, and how existing Small Businesses may be affected. We propose no replacement employee threshold.
I. Explaining the Standard for Each Industry in NAICS 4236
Appendix A to SBA's revised methodology reports the group-level calculation for NAICS 4236, Household Appliances and Electrical and Electronic Goods Merchant Wholesalers. SBA reports a national industry size of 517,154 employees, 66 geographic markets, a 0.877 net-import adjustment, an average market size of 6,874 employees, and a resulting 1,000-employee size standard.[1]
Applying SBA's published formula and rounding convention reproduces the 1,000-employee result. The application question is different: what current analysis demonstrates that the group-level result is appropriate for NAICS 423610, NAICS 423620, and NAICS 423690 individually?
Section 3(a)(7) of the Small Business Act permits a common four-digit standard where SBA makes publicly available a justification demonstrating that the common standard is appropriate for each individual industry classification included in the group.[1] As explained in our methodology comment, the fact that industries may reasonably be grouped for classification purposes does not, by itself, disclose the constituent-level analysis supporting the resulting number.
We therefore respectfully request that the final rule identify the constituent-industry analysis or safeguard supporting the proposed 1,000-employee standard for each of the three six-digit industries within NAICS 4236.
II. Economic Differences Among the Three Industries
Current 2022 Economic Census firm-level data provide useful context for that request.[2]
Measure
NAICS 423610
NAICS 423620
NAICS 423690
Firms
7,035
1,744
7,173
Employees
211,317
56,836
295,522
Receipts
$219.35 billion
$140.12 billion
$535.76 billion
Employees per firm, derived
30.0
32.6
41.2
Receipts per firm, derived
about $31.2 million
about $80.3 million
about $74.7 million
Four-firm concentration ratio
18.6%
47.7%
45.4%
Share of employment attributable to firms with 250+ employees, derived
58.1%
54.7%
70.3%
Share of receipts attributable to firms with 250+ employees, derived
62.2%
65.4%
81.4%
Note: The 250-or-more-employee shares use firms operating for the entire year; firm totals and per-firm averages use the all-firm rows.
These Economic Census data differ from SBA's SUSB/NES calculation inputs and do not establish that the three industries need different standards. They do show material differences in concentration, firm population, receipts per firm, and activity in the upper employment bands.
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 2 of 14
One feature of these data is especially relevant to the economic-weight question below. Among firms operating for the entire year, firms with 250 or more employees account for approximately 62.2 percent of receipts in NAICS 423610, 65.4 percent in NAICS 423620, and 81.4 percent in NAICS 423690. Those shares include firms above the proposed 1,000-employee ceiling and therefore do not measure the particular population SBA proposes to reclassify. They do show that a majority of full-year-firm receipts in each constituent industry-and more than four-fifths in NAICS 423690-is associated with firms in the 250-or-more-employee portion of the industry.[2]
We respectfully request that SBA address these current constituent differences when explaining why the common 1,000-employee standard is appropriate for each industry within NAICS 4236.
III. The Economic Weight of the 136 Newly Eligible Firms
For NAICS 423690, Other Electronic Parts and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers, SBA's proposed-rule table estimates 7,568 concerns currently qualifying as small and 7,704 under the proposed 1,000-employee standard-a net increase of 136 firms.[3]
The proposal also describes a nationwide increase of approximately 1.8 percent in the number of eligible firms. That percentage measures firm count; it does not establish the percentage increase in eligible employment, receipts, productive capacity, or incumbent Federal contract volume within an affected industry.[23]
Under the current 250-employee standard, the firms that would become newly eligible are drawn from the currently other-than-small population above that ceiling. GAO's 2019 Federal contracting study noted that there is no statutory or regulatory definition of a "mid-sized" business and, for analytical purposes, treated firms above the applicable Small Business size standard and up to five times that standard as mid-sized. Under a 250-employee standard, the proposed 251-to-1,000-employee range lies within that GAO analytical range. We use "mid-sized" only in that descriptive analytical sense, not as a separate legal category.[18]
The number alone, however, does not disclose the economic or Federal-market weight represented by those firms. It does not show:
their distribution by employee size or receipts;
how long they have exceeded the existing standard;
whether they are incumbent Federal contractors;
the Federal contract volume associated with any incumbent contractors in the group;
their concentration of industry receipts or employment; or
the Small Business or socioeconomic-program benefits for which they may become newly eligible.
The 81.4-percent receipt share discussed in Section II illustrates why count alone is insufficient. Because the 250-or-more band includes firms above 1,000 employees, it does not measure the receipts of SBA's specific 136-firm cohort.[2]
We respectfully request that SBA provide, to the extent the data permit and without disclosing confidential firm-level information, a size-band and economic-weight profile of the 136 newly eligible NAICS 423690 concerns.
IV. Preserving the Nonmanufacturer Ceiling and Identifying Other Benefits
Current SBA rules draw an important distinction between the general Wholesale Trade industry size standards and Federal supply acquisitions.
Section 121.201 states that Sector 42 Wholesale Trade NAICS codes are not used to classify Government acquisitions for supplies. Section 121.402 requires supply acquisitions to use the appropriate manufacturing or supply NAICS code, and a concern furnishing a product it did not manufacture is treated as a nonmanufacturer. Section 121.406 generally requires such a nonmanufacturer to have 500 or fewer employees, together with the rule's other requirements.[4]
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 3 of 14
Accordingly, we do not contend that changing the general NAICS 423690 standard from 250 to 1,000 employees automatically makes a 501-to-1,000-employee wholesaler small for a covered Federal supply set-aside. The procurement-specific 500-employee nonmanufacturer ceiling remains a separate protection, and we support retaining it.
That clarification raises a useful follow-on question: what Small Business benefits will the estimated 136 newly eligible NAICS 423690 concerns actually obtain?
The general size standards in Sec. 121.201 apply to SBA programs unless otherwise specified. SBA's financial-assistance rules use industry size standards in determining eligibility in specified circumstances, and current certification rules also connect Small Business status to program eligibility while retaining each program's separate requirements.[5] SBA's proposed rule itself discusses Federal contracting, financing, and regulatory benefits of Small Business classification.
We respectfully request that SBA identify the material contracting, financial-assistance, certification, regulatory, and other Federal program consequences associated with the proposed 423690 expansion, while expressly preserving the separate 500-employee nonmanufacturer rule.
V. Reconciling the Incoming Federal Contractor Estimates
The proposed rule identifies a substantial existing Federal-market population that would become newly small.
SBA states that it used publicly available FPDS and SAM data to review FY2025 contractors and estimates that approximately 37,002 unique firms with FY2025 contracts would become newly small. SBA associates that population with roughly 105,655 FY2025 contracts and more than $71 billion in Federal contract volume.[6]
After the proposed rule was published, Federal News Network reported that SBA's Office of Advocacy-an independent office within SBA-estimated that approximately 4,000 to 6,000 current contractors would gain Small Business status, compared with approximately 56,000 firms currently participating in the Federal Small Business contracting marketplace. SBA's later extension notice separately states that the additional comment period follows "the SBA's clarification of the impacts of SBA's proposed changes." The extension notice does not identify that clarification or state that it is the Office of Advocacy analysis.[16]
The 37,002 and 4,000-to-6,000 estimates may cover different populations or apply different eligibility rules. We request the universe, eligibility test, NAICS treatment, period, and exclusions for each. If the later estimate refines or supersedes the earlier one, SBA should explain any resulting change to the 105,655-contract and more-than-$71-billion figures.
A smaller contractor count need not mean a smaller Federal-market effect. The associated contract volume, concentration, and competitive position also matter.
Whichever figure is the appropriate measure, the affected Federal-market population includes incumbent contractors already active in Federal procurement rather than solely new entrants. SBA states that contracts awarded to newly small firms may count toward agency Small Business goals, including where the procurement was not restricted to Small Businesses. The precise treatment of existing awards and later contract actions remains subject to the applicable representation and recertification rules.
To make those effects understandable, we request that SBA explain when newly eligible firms may receive Small Business goal credit and when they may compete for restricted awards, distinguishing existing contracts and orders from future awards. The explanation should identify the applicable representation and recertification conditions.[26]
The published proposal does not identify enough detail to reproduce the aggregate. Among the open methodological questions are:
FPDS and SAM extraction dates;
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 4 of 14
the contractor universe, including how the IRFA's statement that SBA reviewed "all small businesses with at least one contract in FY2025" relates to identification of concerns that would become newly small;
the persistent entity identifier and deduplication method;
treatment of multiple CAGE codes, UEIs, historical identifiers, parents, and affiliates;
the meaning of "contract" for the approximately 105,655 count, including treatment of modifications and orders;
the monetary field and aggregation method underlying the more-than-$71-billion figure;
the rule for assigning a contractor to a NAICS industry;
the size-measurement date and current/proposed eligibility comparison;
treatment of missing or stale SAM information; and
treatment of affiliation and NAICS exceptions.
Current public contract-award systems contain multiple monetary fields and multiple ways of counting award families, orders, and modifications, which makes those definitions material to reproducibility.[7]
We therefore use the neutral phrase associated Federal contract volume for the more-than-$71-billion figure unless and until SBA identifies the monetary field.
We respectfully request that SBA publish the construction methodology and sufficiently disaggregated summary data for the 37,002-firm population, subject to lawful confidentiality limits.
VI. Distinguishing Recent Graduates from Established Incumbents
SBA identifies the difficulty of transitioning from Small Business status to unrestricted competition as one reason for allowing firms more room to grow. We agree that this transition problem can be real.
A firm approaching an existing threshold and a firm that exceeded that threshold years earlier do not necessarily have the same Federal-market experience, past performance, customer relationships, infrastructure, or access to unrestricted competition.
We do not assume how long any particular firm in SBA's 37,002-firm incoming cohort has been other-than-small, and public contract records alone do not establish an exact economic graduation date. Historical SAM public extracts can, in some circumstances, show a coarse NAICS-specific Small Business status trajectory, but they do not provide a complete measure of historical employee or receipts size and are subject to changing standards, NAICS codes, affiliation, and registration timing.[7]
For the incumbent Federal contractors that would become newly small, to the extent SBA's underlying data permit, how many were previously recorded as other-than-small under the applicable industry standards, for how long, and how much associated Federal contract volume did they obtain during those periods?
Receiving contracts after graduation does not establish that a firm had an easy transition or no longer needs assistance. This FY2025 cohort includes only firms receiving contracts that year and does not capture those that left the Federal market. Its history can nevertheless help SBA distinguish recent graduates from established incumbents and evaluate whether the proposed reclassification fits the population experiencing transition difficulties.
VII. The Number of Awardees and the Concentration of Awards
The proposed rule acknowledges that increasing the eligible pool can increase competition for Federal contracts, may reduce profits, and can redistribute opportunities between newly eligible concerns and firms already qualifying as small. SBA also states that the number of Small Businesses receiving Federal awards will not be reduced.[8]
SBA expects the greatest direct competition near existing thresholds and reasons that the smallest firms are less likely to compete for the same contracts.[8] That distinction may matter for direct prime-contract competition. Does it also account for changes in subcontract sourcing and contract packaging that could affect smaller firms without their bidding against a newly eligible firm for the same prime contract? Sections IX and X explain these additional channels.
Congress and SBA already treat aggregate dollars and the number of participating firms as separate measures. SBA's current procurement scorecard includes a component comparing the number of Small Business prime contractors with the prior fiscal year. GAO found that DOD's Small Business contract obligations increased from FY2011 through FY2020 while the number of Small Businesses contracting with DOD declined.[9]
Historical evidence also merits consideration. Brown, Denes, Duchin, and Hackney report that earlier size-standard increases shifted procurement toward larger firms and reduced revenues and survival among the smallest firms.[25] This working-paper evidence does not predict the effects of the present proposal or establish the correct threshold for NAICS 423690. We ask SBA to explain how it evaluated that evidence when predicting awardee counts and assessing distributional effects.
A larger eligible population necessarily increases the number of firms capable of receiving Small Business credit, but that does not by itself establish how many distinct firms will actually receive awards after the competitive population changes.
One business with 1,000 employees and four independent businesses with 250 employees each have the same total employment but different breadth of business participation. This illustrates the distinction; it does not establish equal productive capacity or predict four-for-one displacement.
Employee ceilings classify individual concerns; they do not create an industry-wide employment allowance.
For an industry in which the applicable standard would rise from 250 to 1,000 employees, how did SBA evaluate whether adding firms with 251-1,000 employees will preserve meaningful opportunities across a broad spectrum of Small Businesses, including firms already qualifying under the existing standard?
The statutory prime-contracting framework expressly calls for broad-spectrum participation within each industry.[11] For wholesale supply acquisitions, the separate nonmanufacturer rules discussed in Section IV continue to apply.
We respectfully request that SBA identify the model, assumptions, data, or empirical evidence supporting the no-reduction prediction and, to the extent practicable, provide expected effects on distinct recipient counts and on the distribution and concentration of awards within the enlarged eligible population.
If SBA adopts materially expanded standards, we respectfully request that it identify a pre-implementation baseline and a timetable for public review of participation and concentration by constituent industry and meaningful firm-size bands. To the extent data permit, the review should distinguish firms qualifying under existing standards, firms newly eligible solely because of the rule, and new Federal-market entrants, while explaining how size-status changes are tracked. SBA should identify available measures, material data limitations, and how evidence of adverse distributional effects would inform reconsideration of particular standards. Such follow-up would complement, rather than replace, the analysis needed before finalization.
VIII. Effects on Socioeconomic and Native Owned Businesses
SBA recognizes that increased size standards may make additional concerns potentially eligible for programs or certifications such as SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, 8(a), HUBZone, and the SBA Mentor-Protege Program, subject to each program's separate eligibility requirements. The 8(a) program also includes eligible entity-owned concerns owned by Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), and Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), subject to distinct program requirements. SBA also states that it cannot accurately predict which newly classified firms will qualify or how they will behave and expects firms near the expanded thresholds not to seek certifications or loan guarantees in large numbers.[10]
The question is whether the number of firms seeking certification adequately measures the potential economic effect.
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 6 of 14
A limited number of newly eligible incumbent Federal contractors could represent substantial contract volume. Thus, even if relatively few firms seek or obtain certification, the effect within a category may depend on the Federal-market capacity represented by those firms rather than solely on the number of applicants.
We respectfully request that SBA, to the extent data permit, estimate both the number and associated Federal contract volume of newly small incumbent contractors that could become eligible within affected socioeconomic categories, and explain how it evaluated potential effects on recipient counts, award concentration, and goal credit.
Native participation also implicates a separate Federal procurement policy.[20] FAR 26.102 provides that Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in performing Federal contracts, and FAR 52.226-1 requires covered contractors to use their best efforts to provide that opportunity through subcontracting. For Department of War (DoW) acquisitions, DFARS 252.226-7001 similarly requires covered contractors to use their best efforts to provide Indian organizations, Indian-owned economic enterprises, and Native Hawaiian small business concerns the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in subcontract awards.[17]
Because the proposed rule may materially alter the competitive population within which Native-owned Small Businesses pursue prime, subcontracting, and socioeconomic-program opportunities, we respectfully request that SBA explain whether it evaluated effects on Native-owned firms and Native communities. SBA's 2022 Tribal Consultation Policy calls for assessment of proposed-policy impacts on Tribes and ANCs; provides for consultation before regulatory or policy changes that have a substantial direct effect on Tribal or ANC participation in programs including 8(a) and HUBZone; permits consultation or direct outreach for broader significant actions affecting Native-owned small businesses; and separately provides for appropriate engagement with NHOs regarding program policies that may significantly affect them.[17] We respectfully request that SBA identify whether Tribal/ANC consultation or other direct outreach, including appropriate NHO engagement, is warranted before the final rule is issued.
IX. Meeting Goals and Preserving Opportunities for Smaller Firms
The statutory 23-percent Government-wide Small Business prime-contracting goal is a floor, not a fixed pot or ceiling. A size-standard increase does not automatically require higher contracting goals. SBA should explain how the existing contracting goals and opportunity requirements will continue to serve smaller businesses and future entrants as larger firms become eligible.[11]
At the prime-contract level, the socioeconomic categories operate within the broader Small Business universe. SBA describes the overall 23-percent Small Business prime-contracting goal as including specific goals for Women-Owned Small Businesses, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, and HUBZone firms. The statutory socioeconomic goals also apply to subcontract awards, so they are not literal additive slices of the prime-only 23-percent denominator, and the categories can overlap. The 8(a) program is not itself the statutory 5-percent category; SBA identifies 8(a) awards as one means by which agencies can help meet the 5-percent Small Disadvantaged Business goal.[19]
Section 15(g) nevertheless requires annual goal setting, maximum practicable opportunity, and goals that realistically reflect the potential of covered Small Business categories.[11]
That inquiry is not confined to the Government-wide prime-contracting floor. FAR 19.702 requires covered contractors to agree that Small Business and listed socioeconomic concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance, and FAR 19.704 requires separate percentage goals for Small Business, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone, SDB, and WOSB subcontracting in covered subcontracting plans.[11]
Consider a prime contractor with a hypothetical $1 million women-owned Small Business subcontracting goal. Ten eligible firms receiving $100,000 each and one larger, newly eligible firm receiving $1 million would produce the same dollar total toward that goal. Fewer businesses would receive work in the second case. Each recipient must satisfy the applicable subcontract size standard and women-owned requirements.[24]
The same reported dollars could therefore coexist with fewer opportunities for the smallest firms and future entrants. Goal attainment alone cannot show whether those firms had meaningful opportunities to compete. The rules require equitable opportunity to compete and maximum practicable opportunity consistent with efficient performance; they do not guarantee an award or equal share to every firm.[24]
Managing fewer suppliers may reduce onboarding reviews, financial checks, vendor-record maintenance, and other administrative work. Larger newly eligible suppliers could make concentrated qualifying purchases more attractive to a prime. Substantial early awards could also reduce its perceived need to develop additional small suppliers once its goals appear attainable. SBA should evaluate these possible incentives and their effects on access for existing smaller socioeconomic firms, especially microbusinesses, and future entrants.
Meeting a numerical goal does not end the continuing opportunity obligations. Plan periods also differ, and percentage results can change as total subcontract spending grows.[24] FAR plan review already considers efficient and economical performance, the eligible supplier pool, and longstanding supplier relationships. How did SBA evaluate whether expanded eligibility could encourage concentration even when reported goal results remain successful?[24]
SBA's proposed rule itself states that contracts awarded to newly small incumbent contractors can count toward agency Small Business goals even where the procurement was not restricted to Small Businesses.[6] That means a material change in who qualifies can also change the amount of existing Federal-market capacity capable of generating Small Business goal credit.
SBA's reported prime-contracting results-28.35 percent in FY2023, a preliminary 28.78 percent in FY2024, and nearly 28 percent in FY2025-do not establish that participation is sufficiently broad or that every industry standard is correctly calibrated. They do show that the Government-wide 23-percent floor was exceeded under the standards applicable in those years.[12]
Congress has previously addressed displacement concerns when expanding a Small Business contracting opportunity. In 1997, Congress made two changes together: it increased the Government-wide Small Business prime-contracting goal from 20 percent to 23 percent-a three-percentage-point increase-and phased in the HUBZone goal to 3 percent. Later GAO and congressional materials describe protection of existing Small Business participants as part of that history.[13] That episode does not impose a numerical formula on the present rulemaking.
We request that SBA explain how these effects inform annual goal setting and whether any adjustment is warranted, with the evidence supporting its conclusion.
X. Subcontracting and Acquisition Planning Effects
Current FAR 19.702 generally does not require a formal Small Business subcontracting plan from a Small Business prime contractor. Current 13 C.F.R. Sec. 125.12 also makes clear that recertification does not automatically change existing award terms: subcontracting-plan requirements in effect at award remain in effect throughout the life of the award.[14]
Accordingly, we do not suggest that the proposed rule automatically extinguishes existing subcontracting plans or that the more-than-$71-billion cohort would immediately move outside formal subcontracting-plan requirements.
The potential effect is prospective. For future awards, a concern newly treated as small may not be subject to the formal subcontracting-plan framework that would apply if the same concern were other-than-small.
We respectfully request that SBA estimate, to the extent practicable, the future Federal award volume that could prospectively move outside formal subcontracting-plan requirements as a consequence of the proposed reclassification.
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 8 of 14
A separate distributional question concerns performance by similarly situated subcontractors. For covered service contracts, qualifying work performed by such a subcontractor with its own employees is excluded from the amount subject to the limitation on subcontracting to firms that are not similarly situated. The subcontractor must have the required Small Business program status and qualify as small under the NAICS code assigned to its subcontract; work it further subcontracts remains subject to the applicable limitation.[21]
Higher standards could therefore change the size and capacity of firms performing qualifying subcontract work even where the prime remains a firm qualifying under current standards. We respectfully request that SBA evaluate, to the extent practicable, the expected distribution of that work by firm-size band, separately from prime-award counts and subcontracting-plan coverage. This inquiry concerns applicable performance rules across affected industries; it does not displace the separate nonmanufacturer requirements discussed above.[21]
Changes in eligibility may also affect how agencies package requirements. SBA's bundling definition considers whether combined requirements are likely to be unsuitable for award to a Small Business concern.[22] If larger newly eligible concerns can perform combined requirements, agencies may assess Small Business access differently even where smaller firms remain unable to compete for the combined work. We respectfully request that SBA explain how it evaluated potential changes in acquisition scope and the availability of separately scoped prime opportunities. Existing consolidation and bundling safeguards remain relevant; the question is how a changed eligible population may affect their practical application.
XI. Clarifying a Published NAICS Code and Description
At 91 Fed. Reg. 53771, SBA publishes a table of the top 20 six-digit NAICS industries with existing FY2025 contractors that would become newly small.
One row appears as:
561720 - Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities - 672 firms.
The official 2022 NAICS structure identifies:
561720 as Janitorial Services; and
541720 as Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities.[15]
We request clarification of the intended code, description, and firm count. This apparent mismatch does not establish that the broader contractor analysis is incorrect.
XII. Requested Clarifications for the Final Rule
We respectfully request that SBA:
1. Identify the constituent-industry analysis demonstrating that the proposed 1,000-employee NAICS 4236 standard is appropriate for NAICS 423610, 423620, and 423690 individually.
2. Address the current 2022 Economic Census constituent differences in the final explanation of the 4236 standard.
3. Provide, to the extent data permit, a size-band, economic-weight, Federal-incumbency, and Small Business-status-history profile of the estimated 136 currently other-than-small NAICS 423690 concerns that would become newly eligible.
4. Confirm retention of the separate 500-employee nonmanufacturer ceiling and identify the other material Small Business program benefits affected by the proposed 423690 general-standard expansion.
5. Reconcile the proposed-rule estimate of approximately 37,002 newly small FY2025 Federal contractors with the subsequent 4,000-to-6,000-contractor estimate attributed to the Office of Advocacy by Federal News Network; identify the "clarification of the impacts" referenced in SBA's extension notice; and state whether the estimates measure different populations or whether a later estimate refines or supersedes the earlier one, including any resulting change to the 105,655-contract and more-than-$71-billion figures. Explain the timing and conditions for new goal credit and restricted-award eligibility.
6. Disaggregate the incoming Federal-contractor population by industry, current size position, recorded Small Business status history, associated Federal contract volume, and socioeconomic characteristics to the extent practicable.
7. Identify the analysis supporting the prediction that the number of distinct Small Business Federal awardees will not decline and explain the expected effect on the distribution and concentration of awards between firms qualifying under existing standards and newly eligible firms. Address relevant empirical evidence from earlier size-standard increases.
8. Explain how potential socioeconomic spillover was evaluated by both firm count and Federal contract volume.
9. Explain how the proposed reclassification was evaluated for effects on Native-owned firms and communities, including the Federal procurement policy providing Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises maximum practicable opportunity to participate, and identify whether Tribal/ANC consultation or other direct outreach, including appropriate NHO engagement, is warranted under SBA's Tribal Consultation Policy.
10. Explain how the changed eligible population is reflected in the annual maximum-practicable-opportunity and realistic-potential goaling process, including whether existing prime- and subcontracting goal structures continue to provide the intended opportunities after the eligible population materially expands.
11. Evaluate whether expanded eligibility could encourage prime contractors to meet socioeconomic subcontracting goals through fewer, larger suppliers, and explain how SBA assessed the resulting opportunities for existing smaller firms, microbusinesses, and future entrants, beyond aggregate dollar or percentage results.
12. Evaluate the prospective effect of reclassification on formal Small Business subcontracting-plan requirements for future awards.
13. Evaluate potential changes in work performed by similarly situated subcontractors and in acquisition packaging, including the availability of separately scoped prime opportunities for smaller firms.
14. Identify a baseline, public review timetable, and process for responding to adverse participation or concentration outcomes, distinguishing reclassification from new Federal-market entry.
15. Clarify the apparent 561720 / 541720 code-description mismatch in the published top-20 contractor table.
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 10 of 14
XIII. Conclusion
Expanding eligibility may help growing firms, but the final decision should also account for who receives the resulting opportunities. Aggregate Small Business dollars and eligible-firm counts cannot, by themselves, establish whether participation remains broad or whether smaller firms and future entrants retain meaningful access.
We respectfully request that SBA publish the constituent-industry, economic-weight, and distributional analysis needed to answer these questions, then use that analysis to determine whether particular proposed standards should be retained, modified, or deferred.
The objective is a final rule that supports business growth while explaining how its standards preserve meaningful Small Business participation across the industries and programs they affect.
Respectfully submitted,
Kari D. Fisher
Chief Executive Officer
Centrion Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 36 | Arlington, Texas 76004
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 11 of 14
SOURCE NOTES
[1] 15 U.S.C. Sec. 632(a)(6)-(8); SBA, Small Business Size Standards: Revised Size Standards Methodology, 91 Fed. Reg. 54096 (Aug. 20, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-17039. The employment-based formula and rounding discussion appears at 91 Fed. Reg. 54148-50; Appendix A's NAICS 4236 row appears at 91 Fed. Reg. 54176.
[2] U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census, EC2200SIZEEMPFIRM (Employment Size of Firms) and EC2200SIZECONCEN (Concentration of Largest Firms), United States, NAICS 423610, 423620, and 423690. Recalculated from the downloadable data on October 1, 2026. Firm totals and per-firm averages use EMPSZFF 001 (all firms). The 250+ shares sum EMPSZFF 545 and 550 and divide by EMPSZFF 200 (firms operating the entire year). Receipts are reported in thousands of dollars; four-firm concentration uses the largest-four-firms row. The 250+ band includes firms with exactly 250 employees and firms above 1,000; it does not isolate newly eligible firms. Data and download links: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/econ/economic-census/naics-sector-00.html
[3] SBA, Small Business Size Standards, 91 Fed. Reg. 53741, 53757 (Aug. 20, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-17042. The published industry table lists NAICS 423690 at 7,568 concerns under the current 250-employee standard and 7,704 under the proposed 1,000-employee standard, a net increase of 136. GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-20/pdf/2026-17042.pdf
[4] 13 C.F.R. Sub Sec. 121.201, 121.402(b), 121.406(b) (current as of Sept. 26, 2026). Sector 42 Wholesale Trade codes are not used to classify Government acquisitions for supplies; supply acquisitions use the appropriate manufacturing/supply NAICS code; and a qualifying nonmanufacturer generally must have 500 or fewer employees, subject to the remaining requirements and exceptions in Sec. 121.406.
[5] 13 C.F.R. Sub Sec. 121.201, 121.301, 121.404(d) (current as of Sept. 26, 2026). These provisions are cited only for the proposition that general size status can affect SBA financial-assistance and certification/program eligibility, subject to each program's separate requirements.
[6] SBA, Small Business Size Standards, 91 Fed. Reg. 53771, 53774-75 (Aug. 20, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-17042. SBA estimates approximately 37,002 unique firms with FY2025 contracts would become newly small, associated with roughly 105,655 contracts and more than $71 billion in Government contracts. The IRFA states that SBA used publicly available FPDS and SAM data and "conducted a review of all small businesses with at least one contract in FY 2025." Footnote 24 restates the 37,000-firm / $71-billion result but does not identify the construction methodology or underlying monetary field. At 91 Fed. Reg. 53771, SBA also states that contracts awarded to newly small firms may count toward agency Small Business goals, including where the procurement was not restricted to Small Businesses. The comment uses the neutral phrase "associated Federal contract volume" unless and until SBA identifies the monetary field.
[7] GSA, SAM.gov Contract Awards API documentation, https://open.gsa.gov/api/contract-awards/; SAM.gov Entity Registration Public Historical Data, https://sam.gov/data-services/Entity%20Registration/Public%20-%20Historical; GSA SAM Entity Management public extract/API documentation. These sources support the distinction among award-counting fields and the limited feasibility of historical public NAICS-specific status reconstruction.
[8] 91 Fed. Reg. 53773-75 (Aug. 20, 2026), "Transfer Impact of Size Standards." SBA acknowledges possible redistribution, increased competition, reduced win probability for some current-small firms, and greatest direct competition near existing thresholds, while stating that the number of Small Businesses awarded Federal contracts will not be reduced. At 91 Fed. Reg. 53773, SBA reasons that the smallest firms are less likely to compete for the same contracts as firms near existing thresholds.
[9] Pub. L. 114-92 Sec. 868; 15 U.S.C. Sec. 644(g); SBA current Small Business Procurement Scorecard methodology. SBA currently assigns 10% of an agency score to comparison of the number of Small Business prime contractors in five Small Business categories with the prior fiscal year. https://www.sba.gov/certifications/. See also U.S. Government Accountability Office, Small Business Contracting: Actions Needed to Implement and Monitor DOD's Small Business Strategy, GAO-22-104621 (Oct. 14, 2021), documenting increased DOD Small Business contract obligations and declining Small Business contractor counts from FY2011 through FY2020. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104621
[10] 91 Fed. Reg. 53772-73 (Aug. 20, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-17042. SBA discusses additional firms potentially eligible for SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, 8(a), HUBZone, and Mentor-Protege participation, while recognizing separate program eligibility requirements and uncertainty about application behavior.
[11] 15 U.S.C. Sec. 644(g). Current law provides a Government-wide Small Business prime-contracting floor of not less than 23%, requires broad-spectrum participation, provides that each agency's annual goal present the maximum practicable opportunity for the covered Small Business categories, requires agency goals to address prime and subcontract awards separately, and requires jointly established goals to realistically reflect each category's potential to perform contracts and subcontracts. See also FAR 19.702 (covered contractors must provide listed Small Business categories maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance) and FAR 19.704(a)(1)-(2) (separate subcontracting percentage and dollar goals by category). Current U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A15+section%3A644+edition%3Aprelim%29; Acquisition.gov: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/19.702; https://www.acquisition.gov/far/19.704
[12] SBA news releases reporting FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025 prime-contracting results. The January 10, 2025 release labels its FY2024 figures preliminary and reports 28.78% ($183.27 billion); its comparison table reports 28.35% ($178.62 billion) for FY2023. The April 29, 2024 FY2023 release rounds the share to 28.4%. The June 25, 2026 FY2025 release reports nearly 28% (approximately $179 billion). FY2023: https://legacy.sba.gov/article/2024/04/29/biden-harris-administration-awards-record-breaking-178-billion-federal-procurement-opportunities; FY2024: https://legacy.sba.gov/article/2025/01/10/biden-harris-administration-awards-record-breaking-183b-federal-contracts-small-businesses-marking; FY2025: https://legacy.sba.gov/article/2026/06/25/sba-releases-fy25-scorecard-small-business-contracting
[13] Pub. L. 105-135 Sec. 603(b)(1); U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-08-643; Congressional Record, Mar. 6, 2002 (statement of Sen. Kerry describing the 1997 HUBZone negotiations). This history is used only as evidence that Congress previously considered non-displacement when adding an additional Small Business contracting cohort, not as a present-day numerical mandate. GAO discussion: p. 8, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-08-643.pdf; Congressional Record: 148 Cong. Rec. S1612 (Mar. 6, 2002), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2002-03-06/pdf/CREC-2002-03-06-senate.pdf.
[14] FAR 19.702(b)(1) (current FAC 2026-01, effective Mar. 13, 2026) (formal subcontracting plans are not required from Small Business concerns); 13 C.F.R. Sec. 125.12(a)(3) (current recertification rule; existing contract terms, including applicable subcontracting-plan requirements, remain in effect as provided by the rule). Acquisition.gov: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/19.702
[15] 91 Fed. Reg. 53771 (Aug. 20, 2026) (published top-20 contractor table lists "561720 - Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities - 672"); U.S. Census Bureau 2022 NAICS definitions (NAICS 561720 = Janitorial Services; NAICS 541720 = Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities). The intended correction to SBA's row has not been assumed.
[16] SBA Office of Advocacy, "Advocacy Supports SBA Size Standards Update" (Sept. 17, 2026), statement cited by Federal News Network and identified at https://advocacy.sba.gov/2026/09/17/advocacy-supports-sba-size-standards-update/. Federal News Network (Sept. 21, 2026) reports Advocacy's analysis as finding approximately 4,000 to 6,000 current contractors would gain Small Business status, compared with approximately 56,000 firms participating in the Federal Small Business contracting marketplace. SBA's extension notice, 91 Fed. Reg. 60524-25 (Sept. 24, 2026), states that the additional comment period follows "the SBA's clarification of the impacts of SBA's proposed changes" but does not identify that clarification. Advocacy is an independent office within SBA, and this comment does not assume that Advocacy's estimate and the proposed-rule estimate use the same population or methodology. Federal News Network: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/acquisition-policy/2026/09/feedback-on-sbas-size-standard-proposal-running-mostly-negative/; extension notice: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-24/pdf/2026-19546.pdf
[17] SBA Tribal Consultation Policy (effective Jan. 26, 2022), especially pp. 1, 4-6, and 10, https://legacy.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/SBA-Tribal-Consultation-Policy-2022-signed.pdf. The policy states that SBA will assess proposed-policy impacts on Tribes and ANCs; provides for consultation before regulatory or policy changes that have a substantial direct effect on Tribal or ANC participation in programs including 8(a) and HUBZone; permits consultation or direct outreach for broader significant actions affecting Native-owned small businesses; and provides for appropriate engagement with NHOs regarding program policies that may significantly affect them. See also FAR 26.102 and FAR 52.226-1 (maximum practicable opportunity and best-efforts subcontracting for Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises), https://www.acquisition.gov/far/26.102 and https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.226-1; DFARS 252.226-7001 (best-efforts subcontracting requirement for Indian organizations, Indian-owned economic enterprises, and Native Hawaiian small business concerns in covered DoW acquisitions), https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.226-7001-utilization-indian-organizations-indian-owned-economic-enterprises-and-native-hawaiian-small-business-concerns.
[18] U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Contracting: Awards to Mid-Sized Businesses and Options for Increasing Their Opportunities, GAO-19-523 (Aug. 20, 2019), Highlights and pp. 1-3. GAO notes that Federal procurement law classifies businesses as small or other-than-small, that "mid-sized" has no statutory or regulatory definition, and that for its analysis GAO treated businesses above the applicable Small Business size standard and up to five times that standard as mid-sized. Under a 250-employee standard, the proposed 251-to-1,000-employee range falls within that analytical band. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-523
[19] SBA, Office of Government Contracting (overall 23-percent Small Business prime goal includes the WOSB, SDVOSB, SDB, and HUBZone goals), https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/sba-locations/headquarters/office-of-government-contracting/; SBA, Guidance for Federal Contracting Officials, 8(a) Program Administration (8(a) awards can help meet the 5-percent SDB goal), https://www.sba.gov/contracting-officials/; AFARS Appendix F (a concern qualifying in multiple socioeconomic categories may be counted in each applicable category), https://www.acquisition.gov/afars/appendix-f-small-business-participation-commitment-document.
[20] Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 553 n.24, 554-55 (1974) (upholding a preference for members of federally recognized Tribes as "political rather than racial in nature," grounded in tribal self-government and Congress's unique obligations toward Indians); United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 645-47 (1977) (explaining that Federal regulation of Indian affairs rests on the distinct political status of Tribes rather than impermissible racial classifications). See also Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255 (2023) (Gorsuch, J., concurring, slip op. at 15) (reiterating the political character of Indian status). These authorities provide context for the distinct Federal-Tribal political relationship underlying the Native participation discussion. Congress has long recognized not only Tribes and Tribal entities, but also individual members of federally recognized Tribes and Indian-owned economic enterprises as distinct subjects of Federal law and policy. See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1452(b), (e) (defining "Indian" and "economic enterprise"). These authorities are cited solely to provide context for that distinct legal framework.
[21] 13 C.F.R. Sub Sec. 125.1 (definition of similarly situated entity), 125.6(a), (c); FAR 52.219-14(b), (e) (reviewed Sept. 29, 2026). These provisions address required program status, size under the subcontract NAICS code, applicable performance limitations, and treatment of further subcontracting. Nonmanufacturer supply acquisitions have separate requirements under Sec. 125.6(a)(2)(ii) and Sec. 121.406. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-125/section-125.1; https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-125/section-125.6; https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.219-14
[22] 13 C.F.R. Sec. 125.1 (definitions of consolidation and contract bundling); FAR 7.107-3 (bundling) (reviewed Sept. 29, 2026). Bundling analysis includes whether combined requirements are likely to be unsuitable for award to a Small Business concern. These authorities support examining how a changed eligible population may affect acquisition planning; they do not establish that a size-standard increase eliminates applicable safeguards. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-125/section-125.1; https://www.acquisition.gov/far/7.107-3
[23] 91 Fed. Reg. 53774 (Aug. 20, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-17042 (estimated nationwide eligible-firm population increases from 6,344,967 to 6,459,508, approximately 1.8 percent). This is a firm-count measure, not an estimate of the corresponding change in employment, receipts, or Federal-market capacity within each industry. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-20/pdf/2026-17042.pdf
[24] FAR 19.704(a)(1)-(2), (8) (separate subcontracting percentage and dollar goals; efforts to provide equitable opportunity to compete); FAR 52.219-8(a), (b), (d) (applicable size and women-owned definitions; maximum practicable opportunity consistent with efficient performance); FAR 52.219-9(b), (c)(1), (d)(1) (commercial and individual plan periods and goals); FAR 19.705-4(d)(2), (5) (efficient and economical performance, eligible subcontractor pool, and longstanding supplier relationships). Reviewed October 1, 2026. The numerical example and possible purchasing incentives are analytical illustrations, not empirical findings attributed to these authorities. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/19.704; https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.219-8; https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.219-9; https://www.acquisition.gov/far/19.705-4
[25] J. David Brown, Matthew Denes, Ran Duchin, and John Hackney, How Big is Small? The Economic Effects of Access to Small Business Government Support, NBER Working Paper 35703 (Sept. 2026), abstract, https://doi.org/10.3386/w35703. See also the authors' earlier working paper, How Big is Small? The Economic Effects of Access to Small Business Subsidies, CES 24-28 (June 2024), pp. 2-3, 34-35, https://www2.census.gov/library/working-papers/2024/adrm/ces/CES-WP-24-28.pdf. The earlier paper studies 2005-2017 and does not determine optimal standards or assess procurement quality; its findings are the authors' views, not Census Bureau policy.
[26] FAR 19.301-3 (rerepresentation by a contractor previously other-than-small); 13 C.F.R. Sec. 125.12(a)(3)-(4) (continuing award terms and applicable size standard upon recertification). Reviewed October 5, 2026. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/19.301-3; https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-125/section-125.12. The requested explanation concerns both eligibility and credit; those consequences should not be treated as interchangeable.
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/SBA-2026-0199-2909
October 7, 2026
VIA REGULATIONS.GOV
Ryan Lambert, Associate Administrator
Office of Government Contracting and Business Development
U.S. Small Business Administration
409 Third Street, SW, Mail Code 6530
Washington, DC 20416
Re: Docket No. SBA-2026-0199
Supplemental Comment - Small Business Size Standards
Dear Mr. Lambert:
Centrion Systems, Inc. respectfully submits this supplemental comment concerning SBA's August ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 7, 2026 VIA REGULATIONS.GOV Ryan Lambert, Associate Administrator Office of Government Contracting and Business Development U.S. Small Business Administration 409 Third Street, SW, Mail Code 6530 Washington, DC 20416 Re: Docket No. SBA-2026-0199 Supplemental Comment - Small Business Size Standards Dear Mr. Lambert: Centrion Systems, Inc. respectfully submits this supplemental comment concerning SBA's August20, 2026 proposed size standards. This supplement is intended to add to, rather than repeat, our earlier comment.
Expanding Small Business eligibility can change who receives contracting opportunities even when reported Small Business spending remains unchanged. We ask SBA to explain whether admitting larger firms could concentrate those opportunities among fewer recipients, and what that would mean for existing smaller businesses and future entrants.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Why is the proposed 1,000-employee standard appropriate for each of the three industries within NAICS 4236?
2. What economic and Federal-market capacity do the 136 newly eligible NAICS 423690 firms represent, and what benefits would change given the separate 500-employee nonmanufacturer ceiling?
3. How were SBA's incoming-contractor estimates calculated, and how does the proposed-rule estimate of 37,002 firms relate to the later estimate of 4,000-6,000?
4. Which incoming contractors recently exceeded the existing standards, and which have remained active in Federal contracting for years afterward?
5. What supports SBA's prediction that Small Business awardee counts will not decline, and how did it evaluate concentration of awards?
6. Could agencies and prime contractors meet their Small Business goals while opportunities reach fewer, larger firms? How did SBA evaluate the effects on existing smaller socioeconomic firms, Native-owned firms and communities, and future entrants?
Centrion Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 36 | Arlington, Texas 76004
(817) 332-8290 | orders@centrion.com | www.centrion.com
Native American-Owned | Small Disadvantaged Business | Woman-Owned Small Business | SBA HUBZone | NAICS 423690
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 1 of 14
This comment examines the proposed standards, particularly NAICS 4236/423690, and the Federal-market capacity that would become newly eligible. Our companion comment on Docket SBA-2026-0265 addresses how the methodology evaluates those changes.
The proposed 1,000-employee general standard for NAICS 4236/423690 does not replace the separate 500-employee nonmanufacturer ceiling for covered Federal supply acquisitions. We support retaining that ceiling. Our questions concern the general standard's other effects, its fit for each industry, and the Federal-market capacity being reclassified.
We request the analysis needed to determine who becomes newly eligible, what benefits change, and how existing Small Businesses may be affected. We propose no replacement employee threshold.
I. Explaining the Standard for Each Industry in NAICS 4236
Appendix A to SBA's revised methodology reports the group-level calculation for NAICS 4236, Household Appliances and Electrical and Electronic Goods Merchant Wholesalers. SBA reports a national industry size of 517,154 employees, 66 geographic markets, a 0.877 net-import adjustment, an average market size of 6,874 employees, and a resulting 1,000-employee size standard.[1]
Applying SBA's published formula and rounding convention reproduces the 1,000-employee result. The application question is different: what current analysis demonstrates that the group-level result is appropriate for NAICS 423610, NAICS 423620, and NAICS 423690 individually?
Section 3(a)(7) of the Small Business Act permits a common four-digit standard where SBA makes publicly available a justification demonstrating that the common standard is appropriate for each individual industry classification included in the group.[1] As explained in our methodology comment, the fact that industries may reasonably be grouped for classification purposes does not, by itself, disclose the constituent-level analysis supporting the resulting number.
We therefore respectfully request that the final rule identify the constituent-industry analysis or safeguard supporting the proposed 1,000-employee standard for each of the three six-digit industries within NAICS 4236.
II. Economic Differences Among the Three Industries
Current 2022 Economic Census firm-level data provide useful context for that request.[2]
Measure
NAICS 423610
NAICS 423620
NAICS 423690
Firms
7,035
1,744
7,173
Employees
211,317
56,836
295,522
Receipts
$219.35 billion
$140.12 billion
$535.76 billion
Employees per firm, derived
30.0
32.6
41.2
Receipts per firm, derived
about $31.2 million
about $80.3 million
about $74.7 million
Four-firm concentration ratio
18.6%
47.7%
45.4%
Share of employment attributable to firms with 250+ employees, derived
58.1%
54.7%
70.3%
Share of receipts attributable to firms with 250+ employees, derived
62.2%
65.4%
81.4%
Note: The 250-or-more-employee shares use firms operating for the entire year; firm totals and per-firm averages use the all-firm rows.
These Economic Census data differ from SBA's SUSB/NES calculation inputs and do not establish that the three industries need different standards. They do show material differences in concentration, firm population, receipts per firm, and activity in the upper employment bands.
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 2 of 14
One feature of these data is especially relevant to the economic-weight question below. Among firms operating for the entire year, firms with 250 or more employees account for approximately 62.2 percent of receipts in NAICS 423610, 65.4 percent in NAICS 423620, and 81.4 percent in NAICS 423690. Those shares include firms above the proposed 1,000-employee ceiling and therefore do not measure the particular population SBA proposes to reclassify. They do show that a majority of full-year-firm receipts in each constituent industry-and more than four-fifths in NAICS 423690-is associated with firms in the 250-or-more-employee portion of the industry.[2]
We respectfully request that SBA address these current constituent differences when explaining why the common 1,000-employee standard is appropriate for each industry within NAICS 4236.
III. The Economic Weight of the 136 Newly Eligible Firms
For NAICS 423690, Other Electronic Parts and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers, SBA's proposed-rule table estimates 7,568 concerns currently qualifying as small and 7,704 under the proposed 1,000-employee standard-a net increase of 136 firms.[3]
The proposal also describes a nationwide increase of approximately 1.8 percent in the number of eligible firms. That percentage measures firm count; it does not establish the percentage increase in eligible employment, receipts, productive capacity, or incumbent Federal contract volume within an affected industry.[23]
Under the current 250-employee standard, the firms that would become newly eligible are drawn from the currently other-than-small population above that ceiling. GAO's 2019 Federal contracting study noted that there is no statutory or regulatory definition of a "mid-sized" business and, for analytical purposes, treated firms above the applicable Small Business size standard and up to five times that standard as mid-sized. Under a 250-employee standard, the proposed 251-to-1,000-employee range lies within that GAO analytical range. We use "mid-sized" only in that descriptive analytical sense, not as a separate legal category.[18]
The number alone, however, does not disclose the economic or Federal-market weight represented by those firms. It does not show:
their distribution by employee size or receipts;
how long they have exceeded the existing standard;
whether they are incumbent Federal contractors;
the Federal contract volume associated with any incumbent contractors in the group;
their concentration of industry receipts or employment; or
the Small Business or socioeconomic-program benefits for which they may become newly eligible.
The 81.4-percent receipt share discussed in Section II illustrates why count alone is insufficient. Because the 250-or-more band includes firms above 1,000 employees, it does not measure the receipts of SBA's specific 136-firm cohort.[2]
We respectfully request that SBA provide, to the extent the data permit and without disclosing confidential firm-level information, a size-band and economic-weight profile of the 136 newly eligible NAICS 423690 concerns.
IV. Preserving the Nonmanufacturer Ceiling and Identifying Other Benefits
Current SBA rules draw an important distinction between the general Wholesale Trade industry size standards and Federal supply acquisitions.
Section 121.201 states that Sector 42 Wholesale Trade NAICS codes are not used to classify Government acquisitions for supplies. Section 121.402 requires supply acquisitions to use the appropriate manufacturing or supply NAICS code, and a concern furnishing a product it did not manufacture is treated as a nonmanufacturer. Section 121.406 generally requires such a nonmanufacturer to have 500 or fewer employees, together with the rule's other requirements.[4]
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 3 of 14
Accordingly, we do not contend that changing the general NAICS 423690 standard from 250 to 1,000 employees automatically makes a 501-to-1,000-employee wholesaler small for a covered Federal supply set-aside. The procurement-specific 500-employee nonmanufacturer ceiling remains a separate protection, and we support retaining it.
That clarification raises a useful follow-on question: what Small Business benefits will the estimated 136 newly eligible NAICS 423690 concerns actually obtain?
The general size standards in Sec. 121.201 apply to SBA programs unless otherwise specified. SBA's financial-assistance rules use industry size standards in determining eligibility in specified circumstances, and current certification rules also connect Small Business status to program eligibility while retaining each program's separate requirements.[5] SBA's proposed rule itself discusses Federal contracting, financing, and regulatory benefits of Small Business classification.
We respectfully request that SBA identify the material contracting, financial-assistance, certification, regulatory, and other Federal program consequences associated with the proposed 423690 expansion, while expressly preserving the separate 500-employee nonmanufacturer rule.
V. Reconciling the Incoming Federal Contractor Estimates
The proposed rule identifies a substantial existing Federal-market population that would become newly small.
SBA states that it used publicly available FPDS and SAM data to review FY2025 contractors and estimates that approximately 37,002 unique firms with FY2025 contracts would become newly small. SBA associates that population with roughly 105,655 FY2025 contracts and more than $71 billion in Federal contract volume.[6]
After the proposed rule was published, Federal News Network reported that SBA's Office of Advocacy-an independent office within SBA-estimated that approximately 4,000 to 6,000 current contractors would gain Small Business status, compared with approximately 56,000 firms currently participating in the Federal Small Business contracting marketplace. SBA's later extension notice separately states that the additional comment period follows "the SBA's clarification of the impacts of SBA's proposed changes." The extension notice does not identify that clarification or state that it is the Office of Advocacy analysis.[16]
The 37,002 and 4,000-to-6,000 estimates may cover different populations or apply different eligibility rules. We request the universe, eligibility test, NAICS treatment, period, and exclusions for each. If the later estimate refines or supersedes the earlier one, SBA should explain any resulting change to the 105,655-contract and more-than-$71-billion figures.
A smaller contractor count need not mean a smaller Federal-market effect. The associated contract volume, concentration, and competitive position also matter.
Whichever figure is the appropriate measure, the affected Federal-market population includes incumbent contractors already active in Federal procurement rather than solely new entrants. SBA states that contracts awarded to newly small firms may count toward agency Small Business goals, including where the procurement was not restricted to Small Businesses. The precise treatment of existing awards and later contract actions remains subject to the applicable representation and recertification rules.
To make those effects understandable, we request that SBA explain when newly eligible firms may receive Small Business goal credit and when they may compete for restricted awards, distinguishing existing contracts and orders from future awards. The explanation should identify the applicable representation and recertification conditions.[26]
The published proposal does not identify enough detail to reproduce the aggregate. Among the open methodological questions are:
FPDS and SAM extraction dates;
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 4 of 14
the contractor universe, including how the IRFA's statement that SBA reviewed "all small businesses with at least one contract in FY2025" relates to identification of concerns that would become newly small;
the persistent entity identifier and deduplication method;
treatment of multiple CAGE codes, UEIs, historical identifiers, parents, and affiliates;
the meaning of "contract" for the approximately 105,655 count, including treatment of modifications and orders;
the monetary field and aggregation method underlying the more-than-$71-billion figure;
the rule for assigning a contractor to a NAICS industry;
the size-measurement date and current/proposed eligibility comparison;
treatment of missing or stale SAM information; and
treatment of affiliation and NAICS exceptions.
Current public contract-award systems contain multiple monetary fields and multiple ways of counting award families, orders, and modifications, which makes those definitions material to reproducibility.[7]
We therefore use the neutral phrase associated Federal contract volume for the more-than-$71-billion figure unless and until SBA identifies the monetary field.
We respectfully request that SBA publish the construction methodology and sufficiently disaggregated summary data for the 37,002-firm population, subject to lawful confidentiality limits.
VI. Distinguishing Recent Graduates from Established Incumbents
SBA identifies the difficulty of transitioning from Small Business status to unrestricted competition as one reason for allowing firms more room to grow. We agree that this transition problem can be real.
A firm approaching an existing threshold and a firm that exceeded that threshold years earlier do not necessarily have the same Federal-market experience, past performance, customer relationships, infrastructure, or access to unrestricted competition.
We do not assume how long any particular firm in SBA's 37,002-firm incoming cohort has been other-than-small, and public contract records alone do not establish an exact economic graduation date. Historical SAM public extracts can, in some circumstances, show a coarse NAICS-specific Small Business status trajectory, but they do not provide a complete measure of historical employee or receipts size and are subject to changing standards, NAICS codes, affiliation, and registration timing.[7]
For the incumbent Federal contractors that would become newly small, to the extent SBA's underlying data permit, how many were previously recorded as other-than-small under the applicable industry standards, for how long, and how much associated Federal contract volume did they obtain during those periods?
Receiving contracts after graduation does not establish that a firm had an easy transition or no longer needs assistance. This FY2025 cohort includes only firms receiving contracts that year and does not capture those that left the Federal market. Its history can nevertheless help SBA distinguish recent graduates from established incumbents and evaluate whether the proposed reclassification fits the population experiencing transition difficulties.
VII. The Number of Awardees and the Concentration of Awards
The proposed rule acknowledges that increasing the eligible pool can increase competition for Federal contracts, may reduce profits, and can redistribute opportunities between newly eligible concerns and firms already qualifying as small. SBA also states that the number of Small Businesses receiving Federal awards will not be reduced.[8]
SBA expects the greatest direct competition near existing thresholds and reasons that the smallest firms are less likely to compete for the same contracts.[8] That distinction may matter for direct prime-contract competition. Does it also account for changes in subcontract sourcing and contract packaging that could affect smaller firms without their bidding against a newly eligible firm for the same prime contract? Sections IX and X explain these additional channels.
Congress and SBA already treat aggregate dollars and the number of participating firms as separate measures. SBA's current procurement scorecard includes a component comparing the number of Small Business prime contractors with the prior fiscal year. GAO found that DOD's Small Business contract obligations increased from FY2011 through FY2020 while the number of Small Businesses contracting with DOD declined.[9]
Historical evidence also merits consideration. Brown, Denes, Duchin, and Hackney report that earlier size-standard increases shifted procurement toward larger firms and reduced revenues and survival among the smallest firms.[25] This working-paper evidence does not predict the effects of the present proposal or establish the correct threshold for NAICS 423690. We ask SBA to explain how it evaluated that evidence when predicting awardee counts and assessing distributional effects.
A larger eligible population necessarily increases the number of firms capable of receiving Small Business credit, but that does not by itself establish how many distinct firms will actually receive awards after the competitive population changes.
One business with 1,000 employees and four independent businesses with 250 employees each have the same total employment but different breadth of business participation. This illustrates the distinction; it does not establish equal productive capacity or predict four-for-one displacement.
Employee ceilings classify individual concerns; they do not create an industry-wide employment allowance.
For an industry in which the applicable standard would rise from 250 to 1,000 employees, how did SBA evaluate whether adding firms with 251-1,000 employees will preserve meaningful opportunities across a broad spectrum of Small Businesses, including firms already qualifying under the existing standard?
The statutory prime-contracting framework expressly calls for broad-spectrum participation within each industry.[11] For wholesale supply acquisitions, the separate nonmanufacturer rules discussed in Section IV continue to apply.
We respectfully request that SBA identify the model, assumptions, data, or empirical evidence supporting the no-reduction prediction and, to the extent practicable, provide expected effects on distinct recipient counts and on the distribution and concentration of awards within the enlarged eligible population.
If SBA adopts materially expanded standards, we respectfully request that it identify a pre-implementation baseline and a timetable for public review of participation and concentration by constituent industry and meaningful firm-size bands. To the extent data permit, the review should distinguish firms qualifying under existing standards, firms newly eligible solely because of the rule, and new Federal-market entrants, while explaining how size-status changes are tracked. SBA should identify available measures, material data limitations, and how evidence of adverse distributional effects would inform reconsideration of particular standards. Such follow-up would complement, rather than replace, the analysis needed before finalization.
VIII. Effects on Socioeconomic and Native Owned Businesses
SBA recognizes that increased size standards may make additional concerns potentially eligible for programs or certifications such as SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, 8(a), HUBZone, and the SBA Mentor-Protege Program, subject to each program's separate eligibility requirements. The 8(a) program also includes eligible entity-owned concerns owned by Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), and Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), subject to distinct program requirements. SBA also states that it cannot accurately predict which newly classified firms will qualify or how they will behave and expects firms near the expanded thresholds not to seek certifications or loan guarantees in large numbers.[10]
The question is whether the number of firms seeking certification adequately measures the potential economic effect.
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 6 of 14
A limited number of newly eligible incumbent Federal contractors could represent substantial contract volume. Thus, even if relatively few firms seek or obtain certification, the effect within a category may depend on the Federal-market capacity represented by those firms rather than solely on the number of applicants.
We respectfully request that SBA, to the extent data permit, estimate both the number and associated Federal contract volume of newly small incumbent contractors that could become eligible within affected socioeconomic categories, and explain how it evaluated potential effects on recipient counts, award concentration, and goal credit.
Native participation also implicates a separate Federal procurement policy.[20] FAR 26.102 provides that Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in performing Federal contracts, and FAR 52.226-1 requires covered contractors to use their best efforts to provide that opportunity through subcontracting. For Department of War (DoW) acquisitions, DFARS 252.226-7001 similarly requires covered contractors to use their best efforts to provide Indian organizations, Indian-owned economic enterprises, and Native Hawaiian small business concerns the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in subcontract awards.[17]
Because the proposed rule may materially alter the competitive population within which Native-owned Small Businesses pursue prime, subcontracting, and socioeconomic-program opportunities, we respectfully request that SBA explain whether it evaluated effects on Native-owned firms and Native communities. SBA's 2022 Tribal Consultation Policy calls for assessment of proposed-policy impacts on Tribes and ANCs; provides for consultation before regulatory or policy changes that have a substantial direct effect on Tribal or ANC participation in programs including 8(a) and HUBZone; permits consultation or direct outreach for broader significant actions affecting Native-owned small businesses; and separately provides for appropriate engagement with NHOs regarding program policies that may significantly affect them.[17] We respectfully request that SBA identify whether Tribal/ANC consultation or other direct outreach, including appropriate NHO engagement, is warranted before the final rule is issued.
IX. Meeting Goals and Preserving Opportunities for Smaller Firms
The statutory 23-percent Government-wide Small Business prime-contracting goal is a floor, not a fixed pot or ceiling. A size-standard increase does not automatically require higher contracting goals. SBA should explain how the existing contracting goals and opportunity requirements will continue to serve smaller businesses and future entrants as larger firms become eligible.[11]
At the prime-contract level, the socioeconomic categories operate within the broader Small Business universe. SBA describes the overall 23-percent Small Business prime-contracting goal as including specific goals for Women-Owned Small Businesses, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, and HUBZone firms. The statutory socioeconomic goals also apply to subcontract awards, so they are not literal additive slices of the prime-only 23-percent denominator, and the categories can overlap. The 8(a) program is not itself the statutory 5-percent category; SBA identifies 8(a) awards as one means by which agencies can help meet the 5-percent Small Disadvantaged Business goal.[19]
Section 15(g) nevertheless requires annual goal setting, maximum practicable opportunity, and goals that realistically reflect the potential of covered Small Business categories.[11]
That inquiry is not confined to the Government-wide prime-contracting floor. FAR 19.702 requires covered contractors to agree that Small Business and listed socioeconomic concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance, and FAR 19.704 requires separate percentage goals for Small Business, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone, SDB, and WOSB subcontracting in covered subcontracting plans.[11]
Consider a prime contractor with a hypothetical $1 million women-owned Small Business subcontracting goal. Ten eligible firms receiving $100,000 each and one larger, newly eligible firm receiving $1 million would produce the same dollar total toward that goal. Fewer businesses would receive work in the second case. Each recipient must satisfy the applicable subcontract size standard and women-owned requirements.[24]
The same reported dollars could therefore coexist with fewer opportunities for the smallest firms and future entrants. Goal attainment alone cannot show whether those firms had meaningful opportunities to compete. The rules require equitable opportunity to compete and maximum practicable opportunity consistent with efficient performance; they do not guarantee an award or equal share to every firm.[24]
Managing fewer suppliers may reduce onboarding reviews, financial checks, vendor-record maintenance, and other administrative work. Larger newly eligible suppliers could make concentrated qualifying purchases more attractive to a prime. Substantial early awards could also reduce its perceived need to develop additional small suppliers once its goals appear attainable. SBA should evaluate these possible incentives and their effects on access for existing smaller socioeconomic firms, especially microbusinesses, and future entrants.
Meeting a numerical goal does not end the continuing opportunity obligations. Plan periods also differ, and percentage results can change as total subcontract spending grows.[24] FAR plan review already considers efficient and economical performance, the eligible supplier pool, and longstanding supplier relationships. How did SBA evaluate whether expanded eligibility could encourage concentration even when reported goal results remain successful?[24]
SBA's proposed rule itself states that contracts awarded to newly small incumbent contractors can count toward agency Small Business goals even where the procurement was not restricted to Small Businesses.[6] That means a material change in who qualifies can also change the amount of existing Federal-market capacity capable of generating Small Business goal credit.
SBA's reported prime-contracting results-28.35 percent in FY2023, a preliminary 28.78 percent in FY2024, and nearly 28 percent in FY2025-do not establish that participation is sufficiently broad or that every industry standard is correctly calibrated. They do show that the Government-wide 23-percent floor was exceeded under the standards applicable in those years.[12]
Congress has previously addressed displacement concerns when expanding a Small Business contracting opportunity. In 1997, Congress made two changes together: it increased the Government-wide Small Business prime-contracting goal from 20 percent to 23 percent-a three-percentage-point increase-and phased in the HUBZone goal to 3 percent. Later GAO and congressional materials describe protection of existing Small Business participants as part of that history.[13] That episode does not impose a numerical formula on the present rulemaking.
We request that SBA explain how these effects inform annual goal setting and whether any adjustment is warranted, with the evidence supporting its conclusion.
X. Subcontracting and Acquisition Planning Effects
Current FAR 19.702 generally does not require a formal Small Business subcontracting plan from a Small Business prime contractor. Current 13 C.F.R. Sec. 125.12 also makes clear that recertification does not automatically change existing award terms: subcontracting-plan requirements in effect at award remain in effect throughout the life of the award.[14]
Accordingly, we do not suggest that the proposed rule automatically extinguishes existing subcontracting plans or that the more-than-$71-billion cohort would immediately move outside formal subcontracting-plan requirements.
The potential effect is prospective. For future awards, a concern newly treated as small may not be subject to the formal subcontracting-plan framework that would apply if the same concern were other-than-small.
We respectfully request that SBA estimate, to the extent practicable, the future Federal award volume that could prospectively move outside formal subcontracting-plan requirements as a consequence of the proposed reclassification.
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 8 of 14
A separate distributional question concerns performance by similarly situated subcontractors. For covered service contracts, qualifying work performed by such a subcontractor with its own employees is excluded from the amount subject to the limitation on subcontracting to firms that are not similarly situated. The subcontractor must have the required Small Business program status and qualify as small under the NAICS code assigned to its subcontract; work it further subcontracts remains subject to the applicable limitation.[21]
Higher standards could therefore change the size and capacity of firms performing qualifying subcontract work even where the prime remains a firm qualifying under current standards. We respectfully request that SBA evaluate, to the extent practicable, the expected distribution of that work by firm-size band, separately from prime-award counts and subcontracting-plan coverage. This inquiry concerns applicable performance rules across affected industries; it does not displace the separate nonmanufacturer requirements discussed above.[21]
Changes in eligibility may also affect how agencies package requirements. SBA's bundling definition considers whether combined requirements are likely to be unsuitable for award to a Small Business concern.[22] If larger newly eligible concerns can perform combined requirements, agencies may assess Small Business access differently even where smaller firms remain unable to compete for the combined work. We respectfully request that SBA explain how it evaluated potential changes in acquisition scope and the availability of separately scoped prime opportunities. Existing consolidation and bundling safeguards remain relevant; the question is how a changed eligible population may affect their practical application.
XI. Clarifying a Published NAICS Code and Description
At 91 Fed. Reg. 53771, SBA publishes a table of the top 20 six-digit NAICS industries with existing FY2025 contractors that would become newly small.
One row appears as:
561720 - Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities - 672 firms.
The official 2022 NAICS structure identifies:
561720 as Janitorial Services; and
541720 as Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities.[15]
We request clarification of the intended code, description, and firm count. This apparent mismatch does not establish that the broader contractor analysis is incorrect.
XII. Requested Clarifications for the Final Rule
We respectfully request that SBA:
1. Identify the constituent-industry analysis demonstrating that the proposed 1,000-employee NAICS 4236 standard is appropriate for NAICS 423610, 423620, and 423690 individually.
2. Address the current 2022 Economic Census constituent differences in the final explanation of the 4236 standard.
3. Provide, to the extent data permit, a size-band, economic-weight, Federal-incumbency, and Small Business-status-history profile of the estimated 136 currently other-than-small NAICS 423690 concerns that would become newly eligible.
4. Confirm retention of the separate 500-employee nonmanufacturer ceiling and identify the other material Small Business program benefits affected by the proposed 423690 general-standard expansion.
5. Reconcile the proposed-rule estimate of approximately 37,002 newly small FY2025 Federal contractors with the subsequent 4,000-to-6,000-contractor estimate attributed to the Office of Advocacy by Federal News Network; identify the "clarification of the impacts" referenced in SBA's extension notice; and state whether the estimates measure different populations or whether a later estimate refines or supersedes the earlier one, including any resulting change to the 105,655-contract and more-than-$71-billion figures. Explain the timing and conditions for new goal credit and restricted-award eligibility.
6. Disaggregate the incoming Federal-contractor population by industry, current size position, recorded Small Business status history, associated Federal contract volume, and socioeconomic characteristics to the extent practicable.
7. Identify the analysis supporting the prediction that the number of distinct Small Business Federal awardees will not decline and explain the expected effect on the distribution and concentration of awards between firms qualifying under existing standards and newly eligible firms. Address relevant empirical evidence from earlier size-standard increases.
8. Explain how potential socioeconomic spillover was evaluated by both firm count and Federal contract volume.
9. Explain how the proposed reclassification was evaluated for effects on Native-owned firms and communities, including the Federal procurement policy providing Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises maximum practicable opportunity to participate, and identify whether Tribal/ANC consultation or other direct outreach, including appropriate NHO engagement, is warranted under SBA's Tribal Consultation Policy.
10. Explain how the changed eligible population is reflected in the annual maximum-practicable-opportunity and realistic-potential goaling process, including whether existing prime- and subcontracting goal structures continue to provide the intended opportunities after the eligible population materially expands.
11. Evaluate whether expanded eligibility could encourage prime contractors to meet socioeconomic subcontracting goals through fewer, larger suppliers, and explain how SBA assessed the resulting opportunities for existing smaller firms, microbusinesses, and future entrants, beyond aggregate dollar or percentage results.
12. Evaluate the prospective effect of reclassification on formal Small Business subcontracting-plan requirements for future awards.
13. Evaluate potential changes in work performed by similarly situated subcontractors and in acquisition packaging, including the availability of separately scoped prime opportunities for smaller firms.
14. Identify a baseline, public review timetable, and process for responding to adverse participation or concentration outcomes, distinguishing reclassification from new Federal-market entry.
15. Clarify the apparent 561720 / 541720 code-description mismatch in the published top-20 contractor table.
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 10 of 14
XIII. Conclusion
Expanding eligibility may help growing firms, but the final decision should also account for who receives the resulting opportunities. Aggregate Small Business dollars and eligible-firm counts cannot, by themselves, establish whether participation remains broad or whether smaller firms and future entrants retain meaningful access.
We respectfully request that SBA publish the constituent-industry, economic-weight, and distributional analysis needed to answer these questions, then use that analysis to determine whether particular proposed standards should be retained, modified, or deferred.
The objective is a final rule that supports business growth while explaining how its standards preserve meaningful Small Business participation across the industries and programs they affect.
Respectfully submitted,
Kari D. Fisher
Chief Executive Officer
Centrion Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 36 | Arlington, Texas 76004
Docket SBA-2026-0199 | Page 11 of 14
SOURCE NOTES
[1] 15 U.S.C. Sec. 632(a)(6)-(8); SBA, Small Business Size Standards: Revised Size Standards Methodology, 91 Fed. Reg. 54096 (Aug. 20, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-17039. The employment-based formula and rounding discussion appears at 91 Fed. Reg. 54148-50; Appendix A's NAICS 4236 row appears at 91 Fed. Reg. 54176.
[2] U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census, EC2200SIZEEMPFIRM (Employment Size of Firms) and EC2200SIZECONCEN (Concentration of Largest Firms), United States, NAICS 423610, 423620, and 423690. Recalculated from the downloadable data on October 1, 2026. Firm totals and per-firm averages use EMPSZFF 001 (all firms). The 250+ shares sum EMPSZFF 545 and 550 and divide by EMPSZFF 200 (firms operating the entire year). Receipts are reported in thousands of dollars; four-firm concentration uses the largest-four-firms row. The 250+ band includes firms with exactly 250 employees and firms above 1,000; it does not isolate newly eligible firms. Data and download links: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/econ/economic-census/naics-sector-00.html
[3] SBA, Small Business Size Standards, 91 Fed. Reg. 53741, 53757 (Aug. 20, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-17042. The published industry table lists NAICS 423690 at 7,568 concerns under the current 250-employee standard and 7,704 under the proposed 1,000-employee standard, a net increase of 136. GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-20/pdf/2026-17042.pdf
[4] 13 C.F.R. Sub Sec. 121.201, 121.402(b), 121.406(b) (current as of Sept. 26, 2026). Sector 42 Wholesale Trade codes are not used to classify Government acquisitions for supplies; supply acquisitions use the appropriate manufacturing/supply NAICS code; and a qualifying nonmanufacturer generally must have 500 or fewer employees, subject to the remaining requirements and exceptions in Sec. 121.406.
[5] 13 C.F.R. Sub Sec. 121.201, 121.301, 121.404(d) (current as of Sept. 26, 2026). These provisions are cited only for the proposition that general size status can affect SBA financial-assistance and certification/program eligibility, subject to each program's separate requirements.
[6] SBA, Small Business Size Standards, 91 Fed. Reg. 53771, 53774-75 (Aug. 20, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-17042. SBA estimates approximately 37,002 unique firms with FY2025 contracts would become newly small, associated with roughly 105,655 contracts and more than $71 billion in Government contracts. The IRFA states that SBA used publicly available FPDS and SAM data and "conducted a review of all small businesses with at least one contract in FY 2025." Footnote 24 restates the 37,000-firm / $71-billion result but does not identify the construction methodology or underlying monetary field. At 91 Fed. Reg. 53771, SBA also states that contracts awarded to newly small firms may count toward agency Small Business goals, including where the procurement was not restricted to Small Businesses. The comment uses the neutral phrase "associated Federal contract volume" unless and until SBA identifies the monetary field.
[7] GSA, SAM.gov Contract Awards API documentation, https://open.gsa.gov/api/contract-awards/; SAM.gov Entity Registration Public Historical Data, https://sam.gov/data-services/Entity%20Registration/Public%20-%20Historical; GSA SAM Entity Management public extract/API documentation. These sources support the distinction among award-counting fields and the limited feasibility of historical public NAICS-specific status reconstruction.
[8] 91 Fed. Reg. 53773-75 (Aug. 20, 2026), "Transfer Impact of Size Standards." SBA acknowledges possible redistribution, increased competition, reduced win probability for some current-small firms, and greatest direct competition near existing thresholds, while stating that the number of Small Businesses awarded Federal contracts will not be reduced. At 91 Fed. Reg. 53773, SBA reasons that the smallest firms are less likely to compete for the same contracts as firms near existing thresholds.
[9] Pub. L. 114-92 Sec. 868; 15 U.S.C. Sec. 644(g); SBA current Small Business Procurement Scorecard methodology. SBA currently assigns 10% of an agency score to comparison of the number of Small Business prime contractors in five Small Business categories with the prior fiscal year. https://www.sba.gov/certifications/. See also U.S. Government Accountability Office, Small Business Contracting: Actions Needed to Implement and Monitor DOD's Small Business Strategy, GAO-22-104621 (Oct. 14, 2021), documenting increased DOD Small Business contract obligations and declining Small Business contractor counts from FY2011 through FY2020. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104621
[10] 91 Fed. Reg. 53772-73 (Aug. 20, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-17042. SBA discusses additional firms potentially eligible for SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, 8(a), HUBZone, and Mentor-Protege participation, while recognizing separate program eligibility requirements and uncertainty about application behavior.
[11] 15 U.S.C. Sec. 644(g). Current law provides a Government-wide Small Business prime-contracting floor of not less than 23%, requires broad-spectrum participation, provides that each agency's annual goal present the maximum practicable opportunity for the covered Small Business categories, requires agency goals to address prime and subcontract awards separately, and requires jointly established goals to realistically reflect each category's potential to perform contracts and subcontracts. See also FAR 19.702 (covered contractors must provide listed Small Business categories maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance) and FAR 19.704(a)(1)-(2) (separate subcontracting percentage and dollar goals by category). Current U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A15+section%3A644+edition%3Aprelim%29; Acquisition.gov: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/19.702; https://www.acquisition.gov/far/19.704
[12] SBA news releases reporting FY2023, FY2024, and FY2025 prime-contracting results. The January 10, 2025 release labels its FY2024 figures preliminary and reports 28.78% ($183.27 billion); its comparison table reports 28.35% ($178.62 billion) for FY2023. The April 29, 2024 FY2023 release rounds the share to 28.4%. The June 25, 2026 FY2025 release reports nearly 28% (approximately $179 billion). FY2023: https://legacy.sba.gov/article/2024/04/29/biden-harris-administration-awards-record-breaking-178-billion-federal-procurement-opportunities; FY2024: https://legacy.sba.gov/article/2025/01/10/biden-harris-administration-awards-record-breaking-183b-federal-contracts-small-businesses-marking; FY2025: https://legacy.sba.gov/article/2026/06/25/sba-releases-fy25-scorecard-small-business-contracting
[13] Pub. L. 105-135 Sec. 603(b)(1); U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-08-643; Congressional Record, Mar. 6, 2002 (statement of Sen. Kerry describing the 1997 HUBZone negotiations). This history is used only as evidence that Congress previously considered non-displacement when adding an additional Small Business contracting cohort, not as a present-day numerical mandate. GAO discussion: p. 8, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-08-643.pdf; Congressional Record: 148 Cong. Rec. S1612 (Mar. 6, 2002), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2002-03-06/pdf/CREC-2002-03-06-senate.pdf.
[14] FAR 19.702(b)(1) (current FAC 2026-01, effective Mar. 13, 2026) (formal subcontracting plans are not required from Small Business concerns); 13 C.F.R. Sec. 125.12(a)(3) (current recertification rule; existing contract terms, including applicable subcontracting-plan requirements, remain in effect as provided by the rule). Acquisition.gov: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/19.702
[15] 91 Fed. Reg. 53771 (Aug. 20, 2026) (published top-20 contractor table lists "561720 - Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities - 672"); U.S. Census Bureau 2022 NAICS definitions (NAICS 561720 = Janitorial Services; NAICS 541720 = Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities). The intended correction to SBA's row has not been assumed.
[16] SBA Office of Advocacy, "Advocacy Supports SBA Size Standards Update" (Sept. 17, 2026), statement cited by Federal News Network and identified at https://advocacy.sba.gov/2026/09/17/advocacy-supports-sba-size-standards-update/. Federal News Network (Sept. 21, 2026) reports Advocacy's analysis as finding approximately 4,000 to 6,000 current contractors would gain Small Business status, compared with approximately 56,000 firms participating in the Federal Small Business contracting marketplace. SBA's extension notice, 91 Fed. Reg. 60524-25 (Sept. 24, 2026), states that the additional comment period follows "the SBA's clarification of the impacts of SBA's proposed changes" but does not identify that clarification. Advocacy is an independent office within SBA, and this comment does not assume that Advocacy's estimate and the proposed-rule estimate use the same population or methodology. Federal News Network: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/acquisition-policy/2026/09/feedback-on-sbas-size-standard-proposal-running-mostly-negative/; extension notice: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-24/pdf/2026-19546.pdf
[17] SBA Tribal Consultation Policy (effective Jan. 26, 2022), especially pp. 1, 4-6, and 10, https://legacy.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/SBA-Tribal-Consultation-Policy-2022-signed.pdf. The policy states that SBA will assess proposed-policy impacts on Tribes and ANCs; provides for consultation before regulatory or policy changes that have a substantial direct effect on Tribal or ANC participation in programs including 8(a) and HUBZone; permits consultation or direct outreach for broader significant actions affecting Native-owned small businesses; and provides for appropriate engagement with NHOs regarding program policies that may significantly affect them. See also FAR 26.102 and FAR 52.226-1 (maximum practicable opportunity and best-efforts subcontracting for Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises), https://www.acquisition.gov/far/26.102 and https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.226-1; DFARS 252.226-7001 (best-efforts subcontracting requirement for Indian organizations, Indian-owned economic enterprises, and Native Hawaiian small business concerns in covered DoW acquisitions), https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.226-7001-utilization-indian-organizations-indian-owned-economic-enterprises-and-native-hawaiian-small-business-concerns.
[18] U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Contracting: Awards to Mid-Sized Businesses and Options for Increasing Their Opportunities, GAO-19-523 (Aug. 20, 2019), Highlights and pp. 1-3. GAO notes that Federal procurement law classifies businesses as small or other-than-small, that "mid-sized" has no statutory or regulatory definition, and that for its analysis GAO treated businesses above the applicable Small Business size standard and up to five times that standard as mid-sized. Under a 250-employee standard, the proposed 251-to-1,000-employee range falls within that analytical band. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-523
[19] SBA, Office of Government Contracting (overall 23-percent Small Business prime goal includes the WOSB, SDVOSB, SDB, and HUBZone goals), https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/sba-locations/headquarters/office-of-government-contracting/; SBA, Guidance for Federal Contracting Officials, 8(a) Program Administration (8(a) awards can help meet the 5-percent SDB goal), https://www.sba.gov/contracting-officials/; AFARS Appendix F (a concern qualifying in multiple socioeconomic categories may be counted in each applicable category), https://www.acquisition.gov/afars/appendix-f-small-business-participation-commitment-document.
[20] Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 553 n.24, 554-55 (1974) (upholding a preference for members of federally recognized Tribes as "political rather than racial in nature," grounded in tribal self-government and Congress's unique obligations toward Indians); United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 645-47 (1977) (explaining that Federal regulation of Indian affairs rests on the distinct political status of Tribes rather than impermissible racial classifications). See also Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255 (2023) (Gorsuch, J., concurring, slip op. at 15) (reiterating the political character of Indian status). These authorities provide context for the distinct Federal-Tribal political relationship underlying the Native participation discussion. Congress has long recognized not only Tribes and Tribal entities, but also individual members of federally recognized Tribes and Indian-owned economic enterprises as distinct subjects of Federal law and policy. See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1452(b), (e) (defining "Indian" and "economic enterprise"). These authorities are cited solely to provide context for that distinct legal framework.
[21] 13 C.F.R. Sub Sec. 125.1 (definition of similarly situated entity), 125.6(a), (c); FAR 52.219-14(b), (e) (reviewed Sept. 29, 2026). These provisions address required program status, size under the subcontract NAICS code, applicable performance limitations, and treatment of further subcontracting. Nonmanufacturer supply acquisitions have separate requirements under Sec. 125.6(a)(2)(ii) and Sec. 121.406. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-125/section-125.1; https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-125/section-125.6; https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.219-14
[22] 13 C.F.R. Sec. 125.1 (definitions of consolidation and contract bundling); FAR 7.107-3 (bundling) (reviewed Sept. 29, 2026). Bundling analysis includes whether combined requirements are likely to be unsuitable for award to a Small Business concern. These authorities support examining how a changed eligible population may affect acquisition planning; they do not establish that a size-standard increase eliminates applicable safeguards. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-125/section-125.1; https://www.acquisition.gov/far/7.107-3
[23] 91 Fed. Reg. 53774 (Aug. 20, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-17042 (estimated nationwide eligible-firm population increases from 6,344,967 to 6,459,508, approximately 1.8 percent). This is a firm-count measure, not an estimate of the corresponding change in employment, receipts, or Federal-market capacity within each industry. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-20/pdf/2026-17042.pdf
[24] FAR 19.704(a)(1)-(2), (8) (separate subcontracting percentage and dollar goals; efforts to provide equitable opportunity to compete); FAR 52.219-8(a), (b), (d) (applicable size and women-owned definitions; maximum practicable opportunity consistent with efficient performance); FAR 52.219-9(b), (c)(1), (d)(1) (commercial and individual plan periods and goals); FAR 19.705-4(d)(2), (5) (efficient and economical performance, eligible subcontractor pool, and longstanding supplier relationships). Reviewed October 1, 2026. The numerical example and possible purchasing incentives are analytical illustrations, not empirical findings attributed to these authorities. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/19.704; https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.219-8; https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.219-9; https://www.acquisition.gov/far/19.705-4
[25] J. David Brown, Matthew Denes, Ran Duchin, and John Hackney, How Big is Small? The Economic Effects of Access to Small Business Government Support, NBER Working Paper 35703 (Sept. 2026), abstract, https://doi.org/10.3386/w35703. See also the authors' earlier working paper, How Big is Small? The Economic Effects of Access to Small Business Subsidies, CES 24-28 (June 2024), pp. 2-3, 34-35, https://www2.census.gov/library/working-papers/2024/adrm/ces/CES-WP-24-28.pdf. The earlier paper studies 2005-2017 and does not determine optimal standards or assess procurement quality; its findings are the authors' views, not Census Bureau policy.
[26] FAR 19.301-3 (rerepresentation by a contractor previously other-than-small); 13 C.F.R. Sec. 125.12(a)(3)-(4) (continuing award terms and applicable size standard upon recertification). Reviewed October 5, 2026. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/19.301-3; https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-125/section-125.12. The requested explanation concerns both eligibility and credit; those consequences should not be treated as interchangeable.
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/SBA-2026-0199-2909
Center for Democracy & Technology Urges HUD to Retain Disparate Impact Standard in Title VI Regulations
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
October 9, 2026
To: Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street SW, Room 10276
Washington, DC 20410-0500
Re: Docket No. FR-6540-P-02 - HUD's Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's Disparate
Impact Standard; Amendments to HUD's Title VI Regulations
The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) respectfully submits these comments in response to the Department ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 9, 2026 To: Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276 Washington, DC 20410-0500 Re: Docket No. FR-6540-P-02 - HUD's Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's Disparate Impact Standard; Amendments to HUD's Title VI Regulations The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) respectfully submits these comments in response to the Departmentof Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to eliminate provisions about discriminatory effects from HUD's regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. CDT is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that works to advance civil rights and civil liberties in the digital age. CDT urges HUD to maintain the current provisions in 24 CFR 1.4, which are vital to preventing discrimination in programs receiving financial assistance from HUD.
Section 602 of Title VI directs agencies that provide federal financial assistance to any program or activity to effectuate Title VI's prohibition on discrimination with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules or regulations that are consistent with achieving the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance. HUD proposes to eliminate provisions of 24 CFR 1.4 that prohibit practices that have the effect of discriminating under a HUD-funded program or defeating the objectives of Title VI. Compliance with these provisions ensures that seemingly neutral policies do not nonetheless discriminate against protected classes, and prevents recipients of federal funding from relying on flawed methods of determining eligibility for and administering HUD programs.
The supplemental notice states that it reopens the public comment period for the January 2026 proposed rule regarding disparate impact liability in Fair Housing Act regulations, and that HUD will consider new comments received during this period concerning only the changes proposed in the supplemental notice. However, the supplemental notice suffers from similar deficiencies as the January 2026 proposed rule: it fails to consider the importance of protections against disparate impact as automated systems shape housing decisions, and its legal analysis does not adequately justify its proposed regulatory changes.
I. The supplemental notice does not support its assertion that disparate impact liability burdens HUD funding recipients.
HUD states that removing the provisions of 24 CFR 1.4 regarding disparate impact is consistent with Executive Order 13563 because these provisions are overly burdensome to funding recipients. However, those who challenge actions as having a disparate impact, including in a case of federal funding recipients, face a high burden, because prevailing on a disparate impact claim requires the challenger to prove that the offending practice caused or predictably will cause a disparate impact to their protected class, and in addition must show that any legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests that practice achieves could be served by another practice with a less discriminatory effect. The Supreme Court has made clear that this framework properly limits disparate impact liability to avoid constitutional issues by "giv[ing] housing authoritiesleeway to state and explain the valid interest served by their policies," so that defendants are not liable based simply on statistical imbalance.
The supplemental notice also states that HUD does not track Title VI-related investigations and compliance reviews that are based in whole or in part on disparate impact claims. HUD therefore cannot quantify the enforcement costs for the agency or compliance costs for funding recipients that are attributable to disparate impact liability. Instead, HUD speculates without evidence that eliminating provisions of 24 CFR 1.4 regarding disparate impact "should" decrease costs and regulatory confusion.
HUD also states that removal of the provisions regarding disparate impact from 24 CFR 1.4 is consistent with Executive Order 13563 because the provisions are unnecessary. Despite the high standard plaintiffs must meet to prevail, disparate impact liability is the main recourse people have when subjected to discrimination through the use of automated systems in housing decisions. For example, automated processes used in a variety of housing decisions may disqualify housing applicants by relying on adverse credit records, which can be a result of past discrimination against protected classes but do not reliably predict applicants' future behavior as residents. These systems also consider past eviction filings and other court records that disproportionately affect certain protected groups. Funding recipients may also use information that data brokers aggregate from a variety of other sources to verify a person's identity, including from mobile apps, social media, employers, and other data brokers, and this data is shown to have lower accuracy rates based on race, ethnicity, and other protected characteristics.
Public housing agencies have also used HUD-administered grants to install surveillance systems that use facial recognition technology for public safety purposes, and information collected through these systems can be used as the basis for evictions. A practice of surveilling all residents and evicting people based seemingly on behavior captured through this technology may appear neutral, but residents of public housing are disproportionately Black and brown people, so this practice will have a disparate impact based on race. Tools like the Vulnerability Index-Services Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool, or VI-SPDAT, which are used by Continuum of Care systems to allocate housing based on vulnerability scores, are also crafted to be race-neutral. However, the design of these tools can produce disparate impacts for Black and brown people that individuals in need of housing and related services would not be able to detect.
Discriminatory intent is practically impossible to prove in these cases as there is often no meaningful transparency regarding whether and how automated systems are used in these decisions, how the systems were trained and tested, or how they arrive at particular adverse decisions. Disparate impact liability is therefore necessary to ensure that funding recipients assess the risks of the automated systems they choose to adopt and put measures in place to prevent discriminatory outcomes from their use.
II. The supplemental notice overstates Supreme Court precedent and contradicts the rationale offered in the January 2026 proposed rule.
The supplemental notice cites Supreme Court decisions that it argues raise doubt sufficient to justify eliminating the provisions of 24 CFR 1.4 regarding disparate impact. However, the Supreme Court has not held that Sec. 602 of Title VI does not permit rules that recognize disparate impact liability. One case cited by HUD, Alexander v. Sandoval, does not support the proposition that Sec. 602 cannot address disparate impact. The only question before the Court in that case was whether Title VI provides a private right of action for disparate impact claims. In fact, the court assumed for the case that Sec. 602 could address disparate impact claims in pursuit of its ultimate holding. In October 2001, the Department of Justice clarified that the Court did not invalidate or even address the validity of the agency's Title VI disparate impact regulations, and the DOJ has operated under that assumption for decades in enforcing these provisions of law.
The Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College pertained to the specific race-based university admissions programs at issue in the case ("affirmative action"). The Court applied the Equal Protection Clause to the affirmative action programs and held that they were unconstitutional for failing to satisfy strict scrutiny, for using race or racial stereotypes as negative factors in admissions, and for failing to have an end date. This case neither stands for the proposition that disparate impact would or could violate the Equal Protection Clause as an unconstitutional racial balancing nor that all affirmative action programs necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause. Further, the Court has not said the same test applies to disparate impact protections, and even if it did, it merely means the same test should apply to disparate impact, not that all disparate impact protections are automatically unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo pertained to the degree of deference that courts should give to agencies' statutory interpretations, holding that courts must exercise their independent judgment when determining whether an agency action is within the scope of its statutory authority. The Court stated that courts recognize a statute has a best meaning that is "necessarily discernible by a court deploying its full interpretive toolkit." But agencies must still enforce their statutes to the best of their abilities, and courts may still defer to the agency if the agency offers the best interpretation in the court's view. Further, the Supreme Court has not opined on the best interpretation of Sec. 602. Thus, HUD need not prematurely inhibit itself from protecting disparate impact.
III. Conclusion
The supplemental notice is a continued departure from HUD's mandate to advance equal access to stable housing, putting people who are already facing the most challenging socioeconomic barriers at even greater risk. While HUD denies that disparate impact liability effectuates this objective within HUD-funded programs, recognizing and enforcing disparate impact liability is in fact crucial to achieving this objective, especially when funding recipients maintain automated systems with discriminatory results. HUD should withdraw this supplemental notice in addition to its January 2026 proposed rule and work toward helping more people secure affordable, safe, and reliable housing.
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HUD-2026-0034-0688
October 9, 2026
To: Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street SW, Room 10276
Washington, DC 20410-0500
Re: Docket No. FR-6540-P-02 - HUD's Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's Disparate
Impact Standard; Amendments to HUD's Title VI Regulations
The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) respectfully submits these comments in response to the Department ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 9, 2026 To: Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276 Washington, DC 20410-0500 Re: Docket No. FR-6540-P-02 - HUD's Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's Disparate Impact Standard; Amendments to HUD's Title VI Regulations The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) respectfully submits these comments in response to the Departmentof Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to eliminate provisions about discriminatory effects from HUD's regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. CDT is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that works to advance civil rights and civil liberties in the digital age. CDT urges HUD to maintain the current provisions in 24 CFR 1.4, which are vital to preventing discrimination in programs receiving financial assistance from HUD.
Section 602 of Title VI directs agencies that provide federal financial assistance to any program or activity to effectuate Title VI's prohibition on discrimination with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules or regulations that are consistent with achieving the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance. HUD proposes to eliminate provisions of 24 CFR 1.4 that prohibit practices that have the effect of discriminating under a HUD-funded program or defeating the objectives of Title VI. Compliance with these provisions ensures that seemingly neutral policies do not nonetheless discriminate against protected classes, and prevents recipients of federal funding from relying on flawed methods of determining eligibility for and administering HUD programs.
The supplemental notice states that it reopens the public comment period for the January 2026 proposed rule regarding disparate impact liability in Fair Housing Act regulations, and that HUD will consider new comments received during this period concerning only the changes proposed in the supplemental notice. However, the supplemental notice suffers from similar deficiencies as the January 2026 proposed rule: it fails to consider the importance of protections against disparate impact as automated systems shape housing decisions, and its legal analysis does not adequately justify its proposed regulatory changes.
I. The supplemental notice does not support its assertion that disparate impact liability burdens HUD funding recipients.
HUD states that removing the provisions of 24 CFR 1.4 regarding disparate impact is consistent with Executive Order 13563 because these provisions are overly burdensome to funding recipients. However, those who challenge actions as having a disparate impact, including in a case of federal funding recipients, face a high burden, because prevailing on a disparate impact claim requires the challenger to prove that the offending practice caused or predictably will cause a disparate impact to their protected class, and in addition must show that any legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests that practice achieves could be served by another practice with a less discriminatory effect. The Supreme Court has made clear that this framework properly limits disparate impact liability to avoid constitutional issues by "giv[ing] housing authoritiesleeway to state and explain the valid interest served by their policies," so that defendants are not liable based simply on statistical imbalance.
The supplemental notice also states that HUD does not track Title VI-related investigations and compliance reviews that are based in whole or in part on disparate impact claims. HUD therefore cannot quantify the enforcement costs for the agency or compliance costs for funding recipients that are attributable to disparate impact liability. Instead, HUD speculates without evidence that eliminating provisions of 24 CFR 1.4 regarding disparate impact "should" decrease costs and regulatory confusion.
HUD also states that removal of the provisions regarding disparate impact from 24 CFR 1.4 is consistent with Executive Order 13563 because the provisions are unnecessary. Despite the high standard plaintiffs must meet to prevail, disparate impact liability is the main recourse people have when subjected to discrimination through the use of automated systems in housing decisions. For example, automated processes used in a variety of housing decisions may disqualify housing applicants by relying on adverse credit records, which can be a result of past discrimination against protected classes but do not reliably predict applicants' future behavior as residents. These systems also consider past eviction filings and other court records that disproportionately affect certain protected groups. Funding recipients may also use information that data brokers aggregate from a variety of other sources to verify a person's identity, including from mobile apps, social media, employers, and other data brokers, and this data is shown to have lower accuracy rates based on race, ethnicity, and other protected characteristics.
Public housing agencies have also used HUD-administered grants to install surveillance systems that use facial recognition technology for public safety purposes, and information collected through these systems can be used as the basis for evictions. A practice of surveilling all residents and evicting people based seemingly on behavior captured through this technology may appear neutral, but residents of public housing are disproportionately Black and brown people, so this practice will have a disparate impact based on race. Tools like the Vulnerability Index-Services Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool, or VI-SPDAT, which are used by Continuum of Care systems to allocate housing based on vulnerability scores, are also crafted to be race-neutral. However, the design of these tools can produce disparate impacts for Black and brown people that individuals in need of housing and related services would not be able to detect.
Discriminatory intent is practically impossible to prove in these cases as there is often no meaningful transparency regarding whether and how automated systems are used in these decisions, how the systems were trained and tested, or how they arrive at particular adverse decisions. Disparate impact liability is therefore necessary to ensure that funding recipients assess the risks of the automated systems they choose to adopt and put measures in place to prevent discriminatory outcomes from their use.
II. The supplemental notice overstates Supreme Court precedent and contradicts the rationale offered in the January 2026 proposed rule.
The supplemental notice cites Supreme Court decisions that it argues raise doubt sufficient to justify eliminating the provisions of 24 CFR 1.4 regarding disparate impact. However, the Supreme Court has not held that Sec. 602 of Title VI does not permit rules that recognize disparate impact liability. One case cited by HUD, Alexander v. Sandoval, does not support the proposition that Sec. 602 cannot address disparate impact. The only question before the Court in that case was whether Title VI provides a private right of action for disparate impact claims. In fact, the court assumed for the case that Sec. 602 could address disparate impact claims in pursuit of its ultimate holding. In October 2001, the Department of Justice clarified that the Court did not invalidate or even address the validity of the agency's Title VI disparate impact regulations, and the DOJ has operated under that assumption for decades in enforcing these provisions of law.
The Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College pertained to the specific race-based university admissions programs at issue in the case ("affirmative action"). The Court applied the Equal Protection Clause to the affirmative action programs and held that they were unconstitutional for failing to satisfy strict scrutiny, for using race or racial stereotypes as negative factors in admissions, and for failing to have an end date. This case neither stands for the proposition that disparate impact would or could violate the Equal Protection Clause as an unconstitutional racial balancing nor that all affirmative action programs necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause. Further, the Court has not said the same test applies to disparate impact protections, and even if it did, it merely means the same test should apply to disparate impact, not that all disparate impact protections are automatically unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo pertained to the degree of deference that courts should give to agencies' statutory interpretations, holding that courts must exercise their independent judgment when determining whether an agency action is within the scope of its statutory authority. The Court stated that courts recognize a statute has a best meaning that is "necessarily discernible by a court deploying its full interpretive toolkit." But agencies must still enforce their statutes to the best of their abilities, and courts may still defer to the agency if the agency offers the best interpretation in the court's view. Further, the Supreme Court has not opined on the best interpretation of Sec. 602. Thus, HUD need not prematurely inhibit itself from protecting disparate impact.
III. Conclusion
The supplemental notice is a continued departure from HUD's mandate to advance equal access to stable housing, putting people who are already facing the most challenging socioeconomic barriers at even greater risk. While HUD denies that disparate impact liability effectuates this objective within HUD-funded programs, recognizing and enforcing disparate impact liability is in fact crucial to achieving this objective, especially when funding recipients maintain automated systems with discriminatory results. HUD should withdraw this supplemental notice in addition to its January 2026 proposed rule and work toward helping more people secure affordable, safe, and reliable housing.
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HUD-2026-0034-0688
Building Bright Futures Urges HHS to Withdraw Head Start Deregulatory Proposal
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
October 1, 2026
Office of Head Start
Administration for Children and Families
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Re: Comments on NPRM "Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs" - RIN 0970-AD30; Docket No. ACF-2026-0595 (91 FR 51248, Aug. 7, 2026)
Dear Office of Head Start:
Building Bright Futures (BBF) is Vermont's Early Childhood State Advisory Council under state statute and the federal Head Start ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 1, 2026 Office of Head Start Administration for Children and Families U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Re: Comments on NPRM "Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs" - RIN 0970-AD30; Docket No. ACF-2026-0595 (91 FR 51248, Aug. 7, 2026) Dear Office of Head Start: Building Bright Futures (BBF) is Vermont's Early Childhood State Advisory Council under state statute and the federal Head StartAct. Our network includes regional councils, program providers, families, and state agency partners working together to build a coordinated, high-quality early childhood system for Vermont's children from the prenatal period to age eight. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which would rescind and replace the Head Start Program Performance Standards at 45 CFR Parts 1301-1305.
Building Bright Futures urges the Department to withdraw and rescind this NPRM in its entirety and retain the current Head Start Program Performance Standards, rather than finalize this rule in any form.
This is not a rule that makes tweaks to peripheral elements of Head Start. Instead, it dismantles, in a single action, the elements that define what a Head Start program is legally required to be - ratios and group sizes, and health, safety, disability, and quality protections. The NPRM replaces these critical elements with an inconsistent patchwork of state requirements, unenforceable local discretion, and, in several places, no guardrails at all. The premise underlying the NPRM - that these standards are primarily a burden to be minimized rather than guardrails that protect children in low-income, rural, and underserved communities in all fifty states - is itself what we object to, and it is not a premise that targeted amendments can fix. This NPRM is in direct contradiction to the non-reduction mandate in Section 641A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9836a(a)(2)(C)(ii)), which explicitly requires that the Secretary:
"...ensure that any such revisions in the standards will not result in the elimination of or any reduction in quality, scope, or types of health, educational, parental involvement, nutritional, social, or other services required to be provided under such standards as in effect on December 12, 2007".
In addition, any future rulemaking should include the following research and stakeholder input: 1.
Commission or identify current, methodologically rigorous research on infant and toddler ratios, rural service capacity, and disability service continuity specifically.
2.
Engage State Advisory Councils and State Head Start Collaboration Offices. Head Start's comprehensive standards and the systems that deliver them are matters on which states have direct expertise, and the rule's own preamble describes it as shifting substantial authority to states.
The sections below explain why we believe the NPRM is unsupported by the evidence it cites and would cause direct harm to children and families, including in Vermont.
I. Elimination of Federal Staff-to-Child Ratios and Group Size Limits (Proposed Sec. 1301.05) The NPRM would eliminate the federal ratio and group-size standard currently established at 45 CFR Sec.
1302.21(b) (center-based programs) and Sec. 1302.23(b) (family child care), replacing it with a requirement that each program simply publish a ratio consistent with "applicable state and local laws and Child Care and Development Fund regulations." In practice, this replaces a uniform national standard with whatever each state's licensing rule happens to require.
The current federal ratio and group-size standard established in 45 CFR reflects a deliberate, evidence-informed choice about what safe and effective care for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers requires. The Administration for Children and Families acknowledges the importance of low child:teacher ratios and small classroom sizes in its own "Look, Listen, and Ask: Tips for Choosing a Quality Child Care Center" document by coaching caregivers to "Ask how many children are in the classroom and how many adults care for them. The fewer children for each adult, the better."
1
Because Head Start serves children who face the greatest barriers to opportunity, including children living in poverty and children with disabilities, ensuring that programs across the country adhere to low child-to-teacher ratios and small classroom sizes is essential. Tellingly, the Department's own preamble acknowledges that current Head Start ratios are stricter than every state in the nation in three of four age categories, and stricter than every state except Vermont and Massachusetts in the fourth; current group-size limits are stricter than every state in three of four categories, and stricter than every state except Vermont in the remaining one.
We are also concerned about how the NPRM uses the research it cites to justify this change. The preamble relies on Perlman, Fletcher, Falenchuk, Brunsek, McMullen & Shah (2017), a systematic review published in PLOS ONE, for the proposition that child-staff ratios show little consistent association with child outcomes. That characterization omits the caveats the authors themselves attached. Their findings applied only to ratios already within existing regulatory ranges, the underlying studies carried significant methodological limitations, and they warned plainly that their results "should not be interpreted as indicating that regulation of ratios can be relaxed."
2
Using this study to support the conclusion its authors warned against is a misapplication of the evidence base, and we ask that the final rule not rely on it for that purpose.
The NPRM also omits the research that most directly bears on this question. The NICHD Study of Early Child Care - the largest longitudinal study of its kind in the United States - found ratio to be one of the strongest predictors of observed caregiving sensitivity, with far higher rates of "highly sensitive" caregiving at stronger ratios, and linked larger group sizes to weaker receptive language and more behavior problems in toddlers.
3
Separately, a 2017 meta-analysis by Bowne, Magnuson, Schindler, Duncan & Yoshikawa
4
(38
4
Bowne, J. B., Magnuson, K. A., Schindler, H. S., Duncan, G. J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2017). A meta-analysis of class sizes and ratios in early childhood education programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3).
3
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Findings from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.
2
Perlman, M., Fletcher, B., Falenchuk, O., Brunsek, A., McMullen, E., & Shah, P. S. (2017). Child-staff ratios in early childhood education and care settings and child outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 12(1).
1
https://childcare.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/Choosing-a-Child-Care-Center.pdf
studies) found a genuine threshold effect: ratios at or better than roughly 7.5:1 predicted meaningfully larger cognitive and achievement gains, with that relationship weakening substantially above that threshold. The Department's own cost analysis in this NPRM illustrates exactly how far this rule would move programs past that threshold: its worked example, using Texas's state maximums, shows ratios of roughly 15:1 for three-year-olds and 18:1 for four-year-olds - more than double the point at which the strongest available evidence says ratio stops predicting better outcomes for children.
The rule's own regulatory impact analysis confirms that this is not an incidental effect. ACF estimates that deferring to state ratios would reduce the required Head Start teaching workforce by roughly 24 percent and increase the average number of children per teacher by roughly 32 percent under full implementation, producing an estimated $668 million in annual personnel-cost savings (with a range of $334 million to just over $1 billion across scenarios). That is a direct statement that the projected savings come from placing more children in the care of each teacher - the very change in caregiving conditions that the research above associates with reduced caregiving quality and weaker outcomes for children under three in particular.
II. Reduction of the Administrative Cost Cap from 15 Percent to 5 Percent (Proposed Sec. 1301.14) The NPRM would cut the allowable administrative cost cap for every Head Start and Early Head Start grantee from 15 percent to 5 percent of total approved program cost. By the Department's own data, only about 3.7 percent of current grantees already operate at or below 5 percent, and another 27.7 percent operate between 5 and 10 percent - meaning roughly two-thirds of all grantees nationwide would need to cut administrative spending to comply. ACF estimates this will remove approximately $754 million in allowable administrative spending annually across the program.
We recognize this change is presented as a way to direct more resources to direct services, and we support that goal. But administrative capacity is exactly what local programs will need more of, not less, under this rule: managing new state-licensing alignment, tracking eligibility documentation without federal self-attestation support, and applying for individual waivers under proposed Sec. 1301.18 all require administrative staff time. Cutting the allowable administrative share by two-thirds, from 15 percent to 5 percent, at the same time the rule shifts substantially more compliance and design work onto local programs risks the opposite of the Department's stated goal: it could leave grantees least able to absorb new local responsibilities. Providers across the country have raised this concern, and it is amplified in a small, rural state like Vermont, where our Head Start and Early Head Start sites already operate at limited scale and cannot spread fixed administrative costs, such as grant management, IDEA coordination, and data systems, across the large enrollments found in other states and territories.
III. Rural Communities, Children with Disabilities, and Vital Health Services - Including Vermont-Specific Impacts Head Start's presence is concentrated in exactly the communities with the fewest alternatives. In the 2023-2024 program year, 45.9 percent of funded Head Start slots were located in rural congressional districts, more than double the 22.4 percent share in urban districts.
5
Rural families also have far less to fall back on; a 2021 survey found that only 26 percent of rural parents could find child care within five miles of home, and rural families were more likely to have to travel more than ten miles to reach a program.
6
These are the conditions under which Head Start's integrated education, health, nutrition, and family-support services are hardest to replace through any other means, including a state licensing system that carries no obligation to backfill them.
On disability services specifically, Head Start has reserved at least 10 percent of its enrollment slots for children with disabilities since 1972, and all Head Start educators are required to participate in ongoing training to care for children with disabilities. Data available on the National Database of Child Care Licensing Regulations shows that fewer than one-third of states have training requirements for Care of Children with Special Needs.
7
Nationally, in the 2023-2024 school year, fewer than half of preschoolers with disabilities (ages 3 through 5), about 43 percent, attended a regular early childhood program and received the majority of their special education and related services in that setting.
8
Removing Head Start's federal disability protections and its requirement for health and mental health consultation does not shift these children into an equally protective state system; in most states, no comparable system exists.
Vermont illustrates exactly what is at stake. Vermont's 50 Head Start and Early Head Start sites, supported by $27,746,193 in federal funding in FY2024, serve 1,249 children combined (540 in Early Head Start and 709 in Head Start Preschool). Of those children, 365 receive disability-related services under IDEA (149 in Early Head Start and 216 in Preschool), 228 are experiencing homelessness, and 82 are in foster care. The program employs 194 teachers, family child care providers, and home visitors, and maintains 84 community partnerships specifically to serve children with disabilities and 72 more to support kindergarten transitions.
Even at current funding and standards, Vermont Head Start programs serve only an estimated 28 percent of eligible Early Head Start-age children and 37 percent of eligible Head Start Preschool-age children statewide - meaning the program already reaches a fraction of the Vermont families who qualify, in a heavily rural state where Head Start is frequently the only source of early intervention, developmental screening, and family support services available. Weakening the federal standards that currently guarantee those services does not create new capacity to serve more Vermont children; it puts the 365 Vermont children currently receiving IDEA services through Head Start, and the 310 experiencing homelessness or in foster care, at risk of losing services with no equivalent state-level guarantee to replace them.
9
Vermont also places far more of its preschoolers with disabilities in genuinely inclusive settings than the nation as a whole. In the 2024-2025 school year, about 65 percent of Vermont children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA attended a regular early childhood program and received the majority of their special education and related services in that setting, compared with about 44 percent nationally, and Vermont placed almost none of these children in separate classes.
10
Head Start, through its longstanding 10 percent disability set-aside and inclusion and training expectations that exceed most states' licensing standards, is 10
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, IDEA Section 618 Data Products, Part B Child Count and Educational Environments, SY 2024-25 (children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA Part B, by educational environment).
9
First Five Years Fund. Head Start: Vermont (state fact sheet, 2025), citing FY2024 Program Information Report (PIR) data.
https://www.ffyf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/HeadStart_VERMONT.pdf
8
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/osep-fast-facts-ec-educational-environments-idea-part-b/
7
https://licensingregulations.acf.hhs.gov/
6
Smith, L.K., Rotolo, O., Walsh, B., Osborn, C., Williams, T., & Mercado, K. (October, 2023). Rural child care policy framework. Bipartisan Policy Center.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/rural-child-care-policy-framework/
one part of the system that produces this result, and the federal standards this rule would remove are part of what sustains it. Weakening that guardrail puts an inclusive model that Vermont has made work, and that most states have not, at risk.
The NPRM also proposes to remove or substantially narrow current protections including the prohibition on suspension and expulsion (current Sec. 1302.17), requirements for staff mental health consultation and health and mental health advisory committees, and prescriptive safety and transportation requirements such as those governing school bus monitors.
These are not administrative technicalities. Head Start was created specifically to serve children and families facing the greatest barriers to opportunity, including children with disabilities and children with significant behavioral health needs. Returning suspension and expulsion policy entirely to local discretion, without any federal guardrail, risks disproportionately pushing out exactly the children the program exists to serve - undermining the comprehensive mission Congress established for Head Start, rather than simply reducing paperwork.
IV. Mandatory English-Only Instruction (Proposed Sec. 1301.04(a))
The NPRM would require Head Start programs to conduct all education in English, with an exemption only for American Indian and Alaska Native programs. This is a significant change from current requirements supporting home-language development for dual language learners, and it would affect Head Start and Early Head Start classrooms serving multilingual families in communities across Vermont. The Department's own analysis estimates a one-time cost of roughly $51.7 million nationally for affected classrooms to replace curriculum and instructional materials, on top of the instructional and family-engagement disruption this change would cause. This requirement is also in tension with the developmental research on dual language acquisition in early childhood, and HHS's own policy statement, which generally supports continued development of a child's home language alongside English rather than a single-language mandate.
11
V. On the Program-Effectiveness Rationale for Deregulation
Some proponents of this rule have pointed to research showing that Head Start's measured academic advantages fade by third grade as evidence the program's standards have failed and can be safely removed. We would note that this is not a new finding, and it did not lead to that conclusion when it was previously examined. When the Department finalized the current Performance Standards in 2016, it cited the same body of research - including the Head Start Impact Study and its follow-ups - and concluded the opposite: that fade-out pointed toward the need for greater dosage and higher-quality implementation, not fewer standards.
12
We are not aware of new evidence since 2016 that reverses that conclusion, and we do not believe fade-out findings support removing the very ratio, group-size, and quality standards that shape day-to-day caregiving quality and child and family experience.
VI. On the Cost-Efficiency Rationale for Deregulation
The NPRM and its supporting analyses treat per-slot cost as a measure of program efficiency, on the premise that higher-spending programs could serve more children within the same appropriation by 12
Federal Register, Head Start Performance Standards, 81 FR 61294 (Sept. 6, 2016)
11
https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/inits/ed/earlylearning/files/dll-policy-statement-2016.pdf lowering that cost. This misunderstands what per-slot spending measures. A Head Start slot is not a unit of child care; it is a bundle of comprehensive services, including developmental and health screening, disability services, mental health consultation, family navigation, nutrition, and often transportation, that non-Head Start child care typically does not include. Per-slot cost is therefore a measure of how much service each slot contains, not a measure of waste. Reducing it does not make the same slot cheaper to provide; it makes it a thinner slot with fewer of those services.
The Department's own February 2026 spending analysis supports this reading rather than the efficiency premise the NPRM draws from it. That analysis found no clear pattern explaining the variation in per-slot spending across or within states, and attributed the variation it could explain to cost of living, service delivery model, and program size, specifically finding that smaller grants spend more per slot than larger ones. These are structural features of where and how a program operates, not indicators of mismanagement, and they describe small programs in rural states with precision: higher per-slot costs there reflect fixed costs spread across low enrollment, the expense of serving dispersed communities, and a comprehensive service model, not any difference in program management.
The same analysis models a scenario in which grants spending above the median reduce their per-slot spending to a benchmark, projecting additional slots as a result. But on the analysis's own findings, spending at those grants reflects service content and operating context, not excess. Bringing it down to a benchmark would not produce more of the same slot; it would convert comprehensive slots into thinner ones and shift the cost of the displaced services onto states, community providers, and families. A nominal increase in slot count purchased this way is the same substitution these comments identify throughout: more slots on paper, and less in each one.
VII. On the Rule's Failure to Account for Costs Shifted Outside Head Start
The NPRM rests on a finding of net benefit, estimating approximately $2.2 billion in quantified impacts as its primary estimate. That accounting is confined to effects within Head Start. It does not quantify the costs of the services these requirements currently finance, which do not disappear when a requirement is removed.
The Department itself recognizes this. In proposing to remove service-duration requirements, ACF acknowledges that families may need to secure alternative child care, which could impose additional financial costs or lost work time. Having acknowledged that transfer, the analysis then leaves it among non-quantified impacts while booking the offsetting savings. The same pattern applies to the services this rule would make optional across health, mental health, disability, and family support: where those needs continue to be met at all, they fall to Medicaid, IDEA and state education systems, TANF, SNAP, WIC, child welfare, and housing services, and to families themselves. An analysis that quantifies the savings inside Head Start while leaving the transferred costs unquantified has not demonstrated a net benefit. We ask the Department to assess these intergovernmental fiscal and service-system effects, weighing costs as well as savings.
The Department's analysis is internally inconsistent on this point. It describes the rule as restoring authority to the states, yet elsewhere concludes the rule would not affect the distribution of power and responsibilities among levels of government. Those characterizations cannot both hold, and the Department should reconcile them, including by consulting the state officials and State Advisory Councils responsible for the systems this rule would affect.
This gap is not merely technical, because in much of the country the systems the analysis assumes will absorb these responsibilities do not exist at the scale required. A cost shifts only where another program has the mandate and the capacity to take it on. In a small, rural state such as Vermont, Head Start is frequently the only source of developmental screening, early intervention, and family navigation a family can reach, delivered in coordination with partners including Reach Up, WIC, 3SquaresVT, DCF Family Services, Children's Integrated Services, Parent Child Centers, primary care providers, designated mental health agencies, local education agencies, and housing services. Where that capacity is removed, the need is not transferred; it goes unmet. The Department requests comment on the challenges states may face in the absence of the rescinded regulations. This is Vermont's answer: the challenge is not one of interpreting statute, but of absorbing functions the federal program currently performs, with no new resources to do so.
This also answers the characterization of these requirements as duplicative. A developmental screening delivered in the classroom a child already attends is not the same service as a referral into a separate system the family must locate and navigate on its own. Head Start's value for this population lies precisely in that integration. Treating the integrated model as redundancy misdescribes what the program does and understates what removing it would cost.
Conclusion and Summary of Recommendations
We urge the Department to withdraw and rescind this NPRM in its entirety, and retain the current Head Start Program Performance Standards (45 CFR Parts 1301-1305) as presently in effect.
Any future rulemaking should include the following research and stakeholder input:
1. Commission or identify current, methodologically rigorous research on infant and toddler ratios, rural service capacity, and disability service continuity specifically, before finalizing changes of this scale.
2. Engage State Advisory Councils and State Head Start Collaboration Offices. Head Start's comprehensive standards and the systems that deliver them are matters on which states have direct expertise, and the rule's own preamble describes it as shifting substantial authority to states.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important proposal. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further with the Office of Head Start and are glad to serve as a resource on Vermont's early childhood system as this rulemaking proceeds.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Morgan Crossman
Executive Director
Building Bright Futures
Vermont's Early Childhood State Advisory Council
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ACF-2026-0595-32455
October 1, 2026
Office of Head Start
Administration for Children and Families
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Re: Comments on NPRM "Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs" - RIN 0970-AD30; Docket No. ACF-2026-0595 (91 FR 51248, Aug. 7, 2026)
Dear Office of Head Start:
Building Bright Futures (BBF) is Vermont's Early Childhood State Advisory Council under state statute and the federal Head Start ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 1, 2026 Office of Head Start Administration for Children and Families U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Re: Comments on NPRM "Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs" - RIN 0970-AD30; Docket No. ACF-2026-0595 (91 FR 51248, Aug. 7, 2026) Dear Office of Head Start: Building Bright Futures (BBF) is Vermont's Early Childhood State Advisory Council under state statute and the federal Head StartAct. Our network includes regional councils, program providers, families, and state agency partners working together to build a coordinated, high-quality early childhood system for Vermont's children from the prenatal period to age eight. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which would rescind and replace the Head Start Program Performance Standards at 45 CFR Parts 1301-1305.
Building Bright Futures urges the Department to withdraw and rescind this NPRM in its entirety and retain the current Head Start Program Performance Standards, rather than finalize this rule in any form.
This is not a rule that makes tweaks to peripheral elements of Head Start. Instead, it dismantles, in a single action, the elements that define what a Head Start program is legally required to be - ratios and group sizes, and health, safety, disability, and quality protections. The NPRM replaces these critical elements with an inconsistent patchwork of state requirements, unenforceable local discretion, and, in several places, no guardrails at all. The premise underlying the NPRM - that these standards are primarily a burden to be minimized rather than guardrails that protect children in low-income, rural, and underserved communities in all fifty states - is itself what we object to, and it is not a premise that targeted amendments can fix. This NPRM is in direct contradiction to the non-reduction mandate in Section 641A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9836a(a)(2)(C)(ii)), which explicitly requires that the Secretary:
"...ensure that any such revisions in the standards will not result in the elimination of or any reduction in quality, scope, or types of health, educational, parental involvement, nutritional, social, or other services required to be provided under such standards as in effect on December 12, 2007".
In addition, any future rulemaking should include the following research and stakeholder input: 1.
Commission or identify current, methodologically rigorous research on infant and toddler ratios, rural service capacity, and disability service continuity specifically.
2.
Engage State Advisory Councils and State Head Start Collaboration Offices. Head Start's comprehensive standards and the systems that deliver them are matters on which states have direct expertise, and the rule's own preamble describes it as shifting substantial authority to states.
The sections below explain why we believe the NPRM is unsupported by the evidence it cites and would cause direct harm to children and families, including in Vermont.
I. Elimination of Federal Staff-to-Child Ratios and Group Size Limits (Proposed Sec. 1301.05) The NPRM would eliminate the federal ratio and group-size standard currently established at 45 CFR Sec.
1302.21(b) (center-based programs) and Sec. 1302.23(b) (family child care), replacing it with a requirement that each program simply publish a ratio consistent with "applicable state and local laws and Child Care and Development Fund regulations." In practice, this replaces a uniform national standard with whatever each state's licensing rule happens to require.
The current federal ratio and group-size standard established in 45 CFR reflects a deliberate, evidence-informed choice about what safe and effective care for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers requires. The Administration for Children and Families acknowledges the importance of low child:teacher ratios and small classroom sizes in its own "Look, Listen, and Ask: Tips for Choosing a Quality Child Care Center" document by coaching caregivers to "Ask how many children are in the classroom and how many adults care for them. The fewer children for each adult, the better."
1
Because Head Start serves children who face the greatest barriers to opportunity, including children living in poverty and children with disabilities, ensuring that programs across the country adhere to low child-to-teacher ratios and small classroom sizes is essential. Tellingly, the Department's own preamble acknowledges that current Head Start ratios are stricter than every state in the nation in three of four age categories, and stricter than every state except Vermont and Massachusetts in the fourth; current group-size limits are stricter than every state in three of four categories, and stricter than every state except Vermont in the remaining one.
We are also concerned about how the NPRM uses the research it cites to justify this change. The preamble relies on Perlman, Fletcher, Falenchuk, Brunsek, McMullen & Shah (2017), a systematic review published in PLOS ONE, for the proposition that child-staff ratios show little consistent association with child outcomes. That characterization omits the caveats the authors themselves attached. Their findings applied only to ratios already within existing regulatory ranges, the underlying studies carried significant methodological limitations, and they warned plainly that their results "should not be interpreted as indicating that regulation of ratios can be relaxed."
2
Using this study to support the conclusion its authors warned against is a misapplication of the evidence base, and we ask that the final rule not rely on it for that purpose.
The NPRM also omits the research that most directly bears on this question. The NICHD Study of Early Child Care - the largest longitudinal study of its kind in the United States - found ratio to be one of the strongest predictors of observed caregiving sensitivity, with far higher rates of "highly sensitive" caregiving at stronger ratios, and linked larger group sizes to weaker receptive language and more behavior problems in toddlers.
3
Separately, a 2017 meta-analysis by Bowne, Magnuson, Schindler, Duncan & Yoshikawa
4
(38
4
Bowne, J. B., Magnuson, K. A., Schindler, H. S., Duncan, G. J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2017). A meta-analysis of class sizes and ratios in early childhood education programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3).
3
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Findings from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.
2
Perlman, M., Fletcher, B., Falenchuk, O., Brunsek, A., McMullen, E., & Shah, P. S. (2017). Child-staff ratios in early childhood education and care settings and child outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 12(1).
1
https://childcare.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/Choosing-a-Child-Care-Center.pdf
studies) found a genuine threshold effect: ratios at or better than roughly 7.5:1 predicted meaningfully larger cognitive and achievement gains, with that relationship weakening substantially above that threshold. The Department's own cost analysis in this NPRM illustrates exactly how far this rule would move programs past that threshold: its worked example, using Texas's state maximums, shows ratios of roughly 15:1 for three-year-olds and 18:1 for four-year-olds - more than double the point at which the strongest available evidence says ratio stops predicting better outcomes for children.
The rule's own regulatory impact analysis confirms that this is not an incidental effect. ACF estimates that deferring to state ratios would reduce the required Head Start teaching workforce by roughly 24 percent and increase the average number of children per teacher by roughly 32 percent under full implementation, producing an estimated $668 million in annual personnel-cost savings (with a range of $334 million to just over $1 billion across scenarios). That is a direct statement that the projected savings come from placing more children in the care of each teacher - the very change in caregiving conditions that the research above associates with reduced caregiving quality and weaker outcomes for children under three in particular.
II. Reduction of the Administrative Cost Cap from 15 Percent to 5 Percent (Proposed Sec. 1301.14) The NPRM would cut the allowable administrative cost cap for every Head Start and Early Head Start grantee from 15 percent to 5 percent of total approved program cost. By the Department's own data, only about 3.7 percent of current grantees already operate at or below 5 percent, and another 27.7 percent operate between 5 and 10 percent - meaning roughly two-thirds of all grantees nationwide would need to cut administrative spending to comply. ACF estimates this will remove approximately $754 million in allowable administrative spending annually across the program.
We recognize this change is presented as a way to direct more resources to direct services, and we support that goal. But administrative capacity is exactly what local programs will need more of, not less, under this rule: managing new state-licensing alignment, tracking eligibility documentation without federal self-attestation support, and applying for individual waivers under proposed Sec. 1301.18 all require administrative staff time. Cutting the allowable administrative share by two-thirds, from 15 percent to 5 percent, at the same time the rule shifts substantially more compliance and design work onto local programs risks the opposite of the Department's stated goal: it could leave grantees least able to absorb new local responsibilities. Providers across the country have raised this concern, and it is amplified in a small, rural state like Vermont, where our Head Start and Early Head Start sites already operate at limited scale and cannot spread fixed administrative costs, such as grant management, IDEA coordination, and data systems, across the large enrollments found in other states and territories.
III. Rural Communities, Children with Disabilities, and Vital Health Services - Including Vermont-Specific Impacts Head Start's presence is concentrated in exactly the communities with the fewest alternatives. In the 2023-2024 program year, 45.9 percent of funded Head Start slots were located in rural congressional districts, more than double the 22.4 percent share in urban districts.
5
Rural families also have far less to fall back on; a 2021 survey found that only 26 percent of rural parents could find child care within five miles of home, and rural families were more likely to have to travel more than ten miles to reach a program.
6
These are the conditions under which Head Start's integrated education, health, nutrition, and family-support services are hardest to replace through any other means, including a state licensing system that carries no obligation to backfill them.
On disability services specifically, Head Start has reserved at least 10 percent of its enrollment slots for children with disabilities since 1972, and all Head Start educators are required to participate in ongoing training to care for children with disabilities. Data available on the National Database of Child Care Licensing Regulations shows that fewer than one-third of states have training requirements for Care of Children with Special Needs.
7
Nationally, in the 2023-2024 school year, fewer than half of preschoolers with disabilities (ages 3 through 5), about 43 percent, attended a regular early childhood program and received the majority of their special education and related services in that setting.
8
Removing Head Start's federal disability protections and its requirement for health and mental health consultation does not shift these children into an equally protective state system; in most states, no comparable system exists.
Vermont illustrates exactly what is at stake. Vermont's 50 Head Start and Early Head Start sites, supported by $27,746,193 in federal funding in FY2024, serve 1,249 children combined (540 in Early Head Start and 709 in Head Start Preschool). Of those children, 365 receive disability-related services under IDEA (149 in Early Head Start and 216 in Preschool), 228 are experiencing homelessness, and 82 are in foster care. The program employs 194 teachers, family child care providers, and home visitors, and maintains 84 community partnerships specifically to serve children with disabilities and 72 more to support kindergarten transitions.
Even at current funding and standards, Vermont Head Start programs serve only an estimated 28 percent of eligible Early Head Start-age children and 37 percent of eligible Head Start Preschool-age children statewide - meaning the program already reaches a fraction of the Vermont families who qualify, in a heavily rural state where Head Start is frequently the only source of early intervention, developmental screening, and family support services available. Weakening the federal standards that currently guarantee those services does not create new capacity to serve more Vermont children; it puts the 365 Vermont children currently receiving IDEA services through Head Start, and the 310 experiencing homelessness or in foster care, at risk of losing services with no equivalent state-level guarantee to replace them.
9
Vermont also places far more of its preschoolers with disabilities in genuinely inclusive settings than the nation as a whole. In the 2024-2025 school year, about 65 percent of Vermont children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA attended a regular early childhood program and received the majority of their special education and related services in that setting, compared with about 44 percent nationally, and Vermont placed almost none of these children in separate classes.
10
Head Start, through its longstanding 10 percent disability set-aside and inclusion and training expectations that exceed most states' licensing standards, is 10
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, IDEA Section 618 Data Products, Part B Child Count and Educational Environments, SY 2024-25 (children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA Part B, by educational environment).
9
First Five Years Fund. Head Start: Vermont (state fact sheet, 2025), citing FY2024 Program Information Report (PIR) data.
https://www.ffyf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/HeadStart_VERMONT.pdf
8
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/osep-fast-facts-ec-educational-environments-idea-part-b/
7
https://licensingregulations.acf.hhs.gov/
6
Smith, L.K., Rotolo, O., Walsh, B., Osborn, C., Williams, T., & Mercado, K. (October, 2023). Rural child care policy framework. Bipartisan Policy Center.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/rural-child-care-policy-framework/
one part of the system that produces this result, and the federal standards this rule would remove are part of what sustains it. Weakening that guardrail puts an inclusive model that Vermont has made work, and that most states have not, at risk.
The NPRM also proposes to remove or substantially narrow current protections including the prohibition on suspension and expulsion (current Sec. 1302.17), requirements for staff mental health consultation and health and mental health advisory committees, and prescriptive safety and transportation requirements such as those governing school bus monitors.
These are not administrative technicalities. Head Start was created specifically to serve children and families facing the greatest barriers to opportunity, including children with disabilities and children with significant behavioral health needs. Returning suspension and expulsion policy entirely to local discretion, without any federal guardrail, risks disproportionately pushing out exactly the children the program exists to serve - undermining the comprehensive mission Congress established for Head Start, rather than simply reducing paperwork.
IV. Mandatory English-Only Instruction (Proposed Sec. 1301.04(a))
The NPRM would require Head Start programs to conduct all education in English, with an exemption only for American Indian and Alaska Native programs. This is a significant change from current requirements supporting home-language development for dual language learners, and it would affect Head Start and Early Head Start classrooms serving multilingual families in communities across Vermont. The Department's own analysis estimates a one-time cost of roughly $51.7 million nationally for affected classrooms to replace curriculum and instructional materials, on top of the instructional and family-engagement disruption this change would cause. This requirement is also in tension with the developmental research on dual language acquisition in early childhood, and HHS's own policy statement, which generally supports continued development of a child's home language alongside English rather than a single-language mandate.
11
V. On the Program-Effectiveness Rationale for Deregulation
Some proponents of this rule have pointed to research showing that Head Start's measured academic advantages fade by third grade as evidence the program's standards have failed and can be safely removed. We would note that this is not a new finding, and it did not lead to that conclusion when it was previously examined. When the Department finalized the current Performance Standards in 2016, it cited the same body of research - including the Head Start Impact Study and its follow-ups - and concluded the opposite: that fade-out pointed toward the need for greater dosage and higher-quality implementation, not fewer standards.
12
We are not aware of new evidence since 2016 that reverses that conclusion, and we do not believe fade-out findings support removing the very ratio, group-size, and quality standards that shape day-to-day caregiving quality and child and family experience.
VI. On the Cost-Efficiency Rationale for Deregulation
The NPRM and its supporting analyses treat per-slot cost as a measure of program efficiency, on the premise that higher-spending programs could serve more children within the same appropriation by 12
Federal Register, Head Start Performance Standards, 81 FR 61294 (Sept. 6, 2016)
11
https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/inits/ed/earlylearning/files/dll-policy-statement-2016.pdf lowering that cost. This misunderstands what per-slot spending measures. A Head Start slot is not a unit of child care; it is a bundle of comprehensive services, including developmental and health screening, disability services, mental health consultation, family navigation, nutrition, and often transportation, that non-Head Start child care typically does not include. Per-slot cost is therefore a measure of how much service each slot contains, not a measure of waste. Reducing it does not make the same slot cheaper to provide; it makes it a thinner slot with fewer of those services.
The Department's own February 2026 spending analysis supports this reading rather than the efficiency premise the NPRM draws from it. That analysis found no clear pattern explaining the variation in per-slot spending across or within states, and attributed the variation it could explain to cost of living, service delivery model, and program size, specifically finding that smaller grants spend more per slot than larger ones. These are structural features of where and how a program operates, not indicators of mismanagement, and they describe small programs in rural states with precision: higher per-slot costs there reflect fixed costs spread across low enrollment, the expense of serving dispersed communities, and a comprehensive service model, not any difference in program management.
The same analysis models a scenario in which grants spending above the median reduce their per-slot spending to a benchmark, projecting additional slots as a result. But on the analysis's own findings, spending at those grants reflects service content and operating context, not excess. Bringing it down to a benchmark would not produce more of the same slot; it would convert comprehensive slots into thinner ones and shift the cost of the displaced services onto states, community providers, and families. A nominal increase in slot count purchased this way is the same substitution these comments identify throughout: more slots on paper, and less in each one.
VII. On the Rule's Failure to Account for Costs Shifted Outside Head Start
The NPRM rests on a finding of net benefit, estimating approximately $2.2 billion in quantified impacts as its primary estimate. That accounting is confined to effects within Head Start. It does not quantify the costs of the services these requirements currently finance, which do not disappear when a requirement is removed.
The Department itself recognizes this. In proposing to remove service-duration requirements, ACF acknowledges that families may need to secure alternative child care, which could impose additional financial costs or lost work time. Having acknowledged that transfer, the analysis then leaves it among non-quantified impacts while booking the offsetting savings. The same pattern applies to the services this rule would make optional across health, mental health, disability, and family support: where those needs continue to be met at all, they fall to Medicaid, IDEA and state education systems, TANF, SNAP, WIC, child welfare, and housing services, and to families themselves. An analysis that quantifies the savings inside Head Start while leaving the transferred costs unquantified has not demonstrated a net benefit. We ask the Department to assess these intergovernmental fiscal and service-system effects, weighing costs as well as savings.
The Department's analysis is internally inconsistent on this point. It describes the rule as restoring authority to the states, yet elsewhere concludes the rule would not affect the distribution of power and responsibilities among levels of government. Those characterizations cannot both hold, and the Department should reconcile them, including by consulting the state officials and State Advisory Councils responsible for the systems this rule would affect.
This gap is not merely technical, because in much of the country the systems the analysis assumes will absorb these responsibilities do not exist at the scale required. A cost shifts only where another program has the mandate and the capacity to take it on. In a small, rural state such as Vermont, Head Start is frequently the only source of developmental screening, early intervention, and family navigation a family can reach, delivered in coordination with partners including Reach Up, WIC, 3SquaresVT, DCF Family Services, Children's Integrated Services, Parent Child Centers, primary care providers, designated mental health agencies, local education agencies, and housing services. Where that capacity is removed, the need is not transferred; it goes unmet. The Department requests comment on the challenges states may face in the absence of the rescinded regulations. This is Vermont's answer: the challenge is not one of interpreting statute, but of absorbing functions the federal program currently performs, with no new resources to do so.
This also answers the characterization of these requirements as duplicative. A developmental screening delivered in the classroom a child already attends is not the same service as a referral into a separate system the family must locate and navigate on its own. Head Start's value for this population lies precisely in that integration. Treating the integrated model as redundancy misdescribes what the program does and understates what removing it would cost.
Conclusion and Summary of Recommendations
We urge the Department to withdraw and rescind this NPRM in its entirety, and retain the current Head Start Program Performance Standards (45 CFR Parts 1301-1305) as presently in effect.
Any future rulemaking should include the following research and stakeholder input:
1. Commission or identify current, methodologically rigorous research on infant and toddler ratios, rural service capacity, and disability service continuity specifically, before finalizing changes of this scale.
2. Engage State Advisory Councils and State Head Start Collaboration Offices. Head Start's comprehensive standards and the systems that deliver them are matters on which states have direct expertise, and the rule's own preamble describes it as shifting substantial authority to states.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important proposal. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further with the Office of Head Start and are glad to serve as a resource on Vermont's early childhood system as this rulemaking proceeds.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Morgan Crossman
Executive Director
Building Bright Futures
Vermont's Early Childhood State Advisory Council
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ACF-2026-0595-32455
Americans for Hearing & Communication Backs TSA Customer Comment Card Renewal With Key Accessibility Enhancements
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
AMERICANS FOR HEARING AND COMMUNICATION Washington, DC | nsnyder301604@gmail.com | 703-646-1087 | www.a4hc.org October 1, 2026
Christina A. Walsh
TSA PRA Officer, Information Technology (TSA-11) Transportation Security Administration 6595 Springfield Center Drive
Springfield, VA 20598-6011
Re: Comments on Intent To Request Revision From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: TSA Customer Comment Card (OMB ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. AMERICANS FOR HEARING AND COMMUNICATION Washington, DC | nsnyder301604@gmail.com | 703-646-1087 | www.a4hc.org October 1, 2026 Christina A. Walsh TSA PRA Officer, Information Technology (TSA-11) Transportation Security Administration 6595 Springfield Center Drive Springfield, VA 20598-6011 Re: Comments on Intent To Request Revision From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: TSA Customer Comment Card (OMBControl No. 1652-0030), 91 FR 48920 (August 3, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-15647
Dear Ms. Walsh:
Americans for Hearing and Communication (A4HC) is a nonprofit organization that advances hearing and communication access across the lifespan through advocacy, education, and coalition building. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed revision of the TSA Customer Comment Card collection, which includes the TSA Cares assistance request and the electronic form travelers use to file disability complaints.
For people who are deaf or hard of hearing, and for travelers who use hearing aids, cochlear implants, and other hearing devices, these forms are often the only structured way to tell TSA what they need before reaching the checkpoint and to report what went wrong afterward. A security checkpoint relies heavily on spoken instructions given in a loud, crowded setting. The information TSA collects through this process directly determines whether travelers can be screened safely, with dignity, and without avoidable misunderstanding.
A4HC supports renewal of the collection. It is necessary and has clear practical utility. Below we offer recommendations on the four questions TSA has asked commenters to address, with particular attention to the proposed new veteran question on the TSA Cares form.
1. The collection is necessary and has practical utility The TSA Cares form and the disability complaint pathway serve functions no other TSA channel serves.
They let travelers with disabilities arrange help in advance, and they give TSA a record of where screening procedures break down for people with disabilities. We urge TSA to keep both and to analyze and publish aggregate, de-identified results on disability-related complaints and TSA Cares requests, including the share involving hearing and communication, to demonstrate practical utility and transparency.
2. The proposed veteran question
TSA proposes to add the question "Are you a veteran?" to support veteran-related initiatives and to measure use of programs designed for veterans (91 FR 48921). To respect travelers' choices, this question will be optional, with a "Prefer not to answer" option, ensuring no one feels pressured or judged.
State clearly that the question is optional and include a "Prefer not to answer" choice, so that no traveler believes their answer affects eligibility for TSA Cares or how they are screened.
Explain on the form, in plain language, why TSA is asking and how the answer will be used, consistent with the Privacy Act statement for the collection.
Use the answer to connect veterans with resources, not to sort assistance or affect screening procedures. The notice says TSA Cares is open to all members of the public. That should stay true in practice, and the optional question should be clearly explained to ensure it does not discourage requests for help.
Coordinate with existing veteran pathways. The notice states that TSA Cares is separate from the Military Severely Injured Joint Support Operations Center and Travel Protocol Office programs (91 FR 48921, n.1). A veteran who answers "yes" should be told, at the point of submission, whether one of those programs may better serve them.
3. Enhancing the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected The current forms rely largely on open-ended descriptions. A traveler who is hard of hearing must decide what to write, and the TSA officer or Passenger Support Specialist who reads the request must interpret it. A small number of optional, structured fields would make the information more consistent and easier to act on. We recommend that the TSA Cares form include optional fields for: Hearing and communication status (for example, deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, or tinnitus or another auditory condition).
Preferred communication method at the checkpoint, such as written notes, speech-to-text on a phone or tablet, face-to-face speech with clear visibility of the officer's face, gestures and visual demonstration, or a sign language interpreter or companion.
Hearing devices the traveler will carry or wear, including hearing aids, cochlear implant processors, bone-conduction devices, and other implanted devices, so that officers can anticipate screening and avoid unnecessary removal of devices.
Preferred method for TSA to follow up, including email, text message, and relay services (TTY, captioned telephone, and video relay). A request should never fail because TSA tried to return it by voice call only. For the disability complaint form, we recommend a structured field identifying the type of barrier involved (for example, spoken instructions that were not understood, public-address announcements without visual equivalents, or handling of a hearing device). This would let TSA identify recurring problems at specific airports and track whether fixes are working.
4. Minimizing burden and ensuring the forms themselves are accessible The burden of a collection depends on whether people can complete it. We recommend that TSA: Confirm that all electronic forms meet Section 508 and WCAG 2.1 Level AA, including clear labels, error messages that do not depend on sound or color, and compatibility with screen readers and mobile devices.
Provide text-based ways to submit or complete a TSA Cares request, including online, email, and text, so that no part of the process depends on a voice call. When TSA staff call travelers back, relay calls should be accepted and handled without delay.
Make the paper comment card easy to find and point to the electronic options. Cards and checkpoint signage could carry a QR code linking to the complaint and TSA Cares forms and should state that disability complaints may be filed.
Validate the burden estimates with travelers who have disabilities. TSA estimates eight minutes to complete a Disability and Civil Rights complaint (91 FR 48921). That estimate may be low for travelers who use relay services or assistive technology, or for whom English is a second language, including many Deaf travelers whose first language is American Sign Language. Brief usability testing with these travelers would improve both the estimate and the forms.
Keep the forms working and monitored at all times. The TSA website currently states that, due to a lapse in federal funding, it will not be actively managed. Travelers who need checkpoint assistance continue to fly during a funding lapse, and TSA should ensure that TSA Cares requests and disability complaints are still received, acknowledged, and answered.
Conclusion
A4HC supports renewal of OMB Control No. 1652-0030 and supports the goal behind the proposed veteran question. We urge TSA to make that question clearly optional, to add structured, optional fields that capture communication needs and hearing devices, to make every part of the process available without a voice call, and to publish aggregate results so the public can see how the information is used.
These changes would add little burden and would make the collection more useful to TSA and to the millions of travelers with hearing loss.
Thank you for considering these comments. A4HC would welcome the opportunity to work with TSA, including the offices responsible for TSA Cares and disability policy, on these recommendations. I can be reached at nsnyder301604@gmail.com or 703-646-1087.
Respectfully submitted,
Neil Snyder
Founder and Principal
Americans for Hearing and Communication Reference: Transportation Security Administration, "Intent To Request Revision From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: TSA Customer Comment Card," 91 FR 48920 (Aug. 3, 2026).
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/03/2026-15647/intent-to-request-revision-from-omb-of-one-current-publ ic-collection-of-information-tsa-customer TSA Cares (website notice regarding lapse in federal funding, viewed Oct. 1, 2026). https://www.tsa.gov/travel/tsa-cares
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/TSA-2013-0001-0381
AMERICANS FOR HEARING AND COMMUNICATION Washington, DC | nsnyder301604@gmail.com | 703-646-1087 | www.a4hc.org October 1, 2026
Christina A. Walsh
TSA PRA Officer, Information Technology (TSA-11) Transportation Security Administration 6595 Springfield Center Drive
Springfield, VA 20598-6011
Re: Comments on Intent To Request Revision From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: TSA Customer Comment Card (OMB ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. AMERICANS FOR HEARING AND COMMUNICATION Washington, DC | nsnyder301604@gmail.com | 703-646-1087 | www.a4hc.org October 1, 2026 Christina A. Walsh TSA PRA Officer, Information Technology (TSA-11) Transportation Security Administration 6595 Springfield Center Drive Springfield, VA 20598-6011 Re: Comments on Intent To Request Revision From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: TSA Customer Comment Card (OMBControl No. 1652-0030), 91 FR 48920 (August 3, 2026), FR Doc. 2026-15647
Dear Ms. Walsh:
Americans for Hearing and Communication (A4HC) is a nonprofit organization that advances hearing and communication access across the lifespan through advocacy, education, and coalition building. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed revision of the TSA Customer Comment Card collection, which includes the TSA Cares assistance request and the electronic form travelers use to file disability complaints.
For people who are deaf or hard of hearing, and for travelers who use hearing aids, cochlear implants, and other hearing devices, these forms are often the only structured way to tell TSA what they need before reaching the checkpoint and to report what went wrong afterward. A security checkpoint relies heavily on spoken instructions given in a loud, crowded setting. The information TSA collects through this process directly determines whether travelers can be screened safely, with dignity, and without avoidable misunderstanding.
A4HC supports renewal of the collection. It is necessary and has clear practical utility. Below we offer recommendations on the four questions TSA has asked commenters to address, with particular attention to the proposed new veteran question on the TSA Cares form.
1. The collection is necessary and has practical utility The TSA Cares form and the disability complaint pathway serve functions no other TSA channel serves.
They let travelers with disabilities arrange help in advance, and they give TSA a record of where screening procedures break down for people with disabilities. We urge TSA to keep both and to analyze and publish aggregate, de-identified results on disability-related complaints and TSA Cares requests, including the share involving hearing and communication, to demonstrate practical utility and transparency.
2. The proposed veteran question
TSA proposes to add the question "Are you a veteran?" to support veteran-related initiatives and to measure use of programs designed for veterans (91 FR 48921). To respect travelers' choices, this question will be optional, with a "Prefer not to answer" option, ensuring no one feels pressured or judged.
State clearly that the question is optional and include a "Prefer not to answer" choice, so that no traveler believes their answer affects eligibility for TSA Cares or how they are screened.
Explain on the form, in plain language, why TSA is asking and how the answer will be used, consistent with the Privacy Act statement for the collection.
Use the answer to connect veterans with resources, not to sort assistance or affect screening procedures. The notice says TSA Cares is open to all members of the public. That should stay true in practice, and the optional question should be clearly explained to ensure it does not discourage requests for help.
Coordinate with existing veteran pathways. The notice states that TSA Cares is separate from the Military Severely Injured Joint Support Operations Center and Travel Protocol Office programs (91 FR 48921, n.1). A veteran who answers "yes" should be told, at the point of submission, whether one of those programs may better serve them.
3. Enhancing the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected The current forms rely largely on open-ended descriptions. A traveler who is hard of hearing must decide what to write, and the TSA officer or Passenger Support Specialist who reads the request must interpret it. A small number of optional, structured fields would make the information more consistent and easier to act on. We recommend that the TSA Cares form include optional fields for: Hearing and communication status (for example, deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, or tinnitus or another auditory condition).
Preferred communication method at the checkpoint, such as written notes, speech-to-text on a phone or tablet, face-to-face speech with clear visibility of the officer's face, gestures and visual demonstration, or a sign language interpreter or companion.
Hearing devices the traveler will carry or wear, including hearing aids, cochlear implant processors, bone-conduction devices, and other implanted devices, so that officers can anticipate screening and avoid unnecessary removal of devices.
Preferred method for TSA to follow up, including email, text message, and relay services (TTY, captioned telephone, and video relay). A request should never fail because TSA tried to return it by voice call only. For the disability complaint form, we recommend a structured field identifying the type of barrier involved (for example, spoken instructions that were not understood, public-address announcements without visual equivalents, or handling of a hearing device). This would let TSA identify recurring problems at specific airports and track whether fixes are working.
4. Minimizing burden and ensuring the forms themselves are accessible The burden of a collection depends on whether people can complete it. We recommend that TSA: Confirm that all electronic forms meet Section 508 and WCAG 2.1 Level AA, including clear labels, error messages that do not depend on sound or color, and compatibility with screen readers and mobile devices.
Provide text-based ways to submit or complete a TSA Cares request, including online, email, and text, so that no part of the process depends on a voice call. When TSA staff call travelers back, relay calls should be accepted and handled without delay.
Make the paper comment card easy to find and point to the electronic options. Cards and checkpoint signage could carry a QR code linking to the complaint and TSA Cares forms and should state that disability complaints may be filed.
Validate the burden estimates with travelers who have disabilities. TSA estimates eight minutes to complete a Disability and Civil Rights complaint (91 FR 48921). That estimate may be low for travelers who use relay services or assistive technology, or for whom English is a second language, including many Deaf travelers whose first language is American Sign Language. Brief usability testing with these travelers would improve both the estimate and the forms.
Keep the forms working and monitored at all times. The TSA website currently states that, due to a lapse in federal funding, it will not be actively managed. Travelers who need checkpoint assistance continue to fly during a funding lapse, and TSA should ensure that TSA Cares requests and disability complaints are still received, acknowledged, and answered.
Conclusion
A4HC supports renewal of OMB Control No. 1652-0030 and supports the goal behind the proposed veteran question. We urge TSA to make that question clearly optional, to add structured, optional fields that capture communication needs and hearing devices, to make every part of the process available without a voice call, and to publish aggregate results so the public can see how the information is used.
These changes would add little burden and would make the collection more useful to TSA and to the millions of travelers with hearing loss.
Thank you for considering these comments. A4HC would welcome the opportunity to work with TSA, including the offices responsible for TSA Cares and disability policy, on these recommendations. I can be reached at nsnyder301604@gmail.com or 703-646-1087.
Respectfully submitted,
Neil Snyder
Founder and Principal
Americans for Hearing and Communication Reference: Transportation Security Administration, "Intent To Request Revision From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: TSA Customer Comment Card," 91 FR 48920 (Aug. 3, 2026).
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/03/2026-15647/intent-to-request-revision-from-omb-of-one-current-publ ic-collection-of-information-tsa-customer TSA Cares (website notice regarding lapse in federal funding, viewed Oct. 1, 2026). https://www.tsa.gov/travel/tsa-cares
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/TSA-2013-0001-0381
3 Truck Safety Advocates Back FMCSA Proposed English Proficiency Out of Service Rule
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
October 09, 2026
DOT Docket No. FMCSA-2026-0826
U.S. Department of Transportation
West Building, Ground Floor
Room W12-140
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE,
Washington, D.C. 20590-0001
Filed via www.regulations.gov
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) English Language Proficiency; Out of Service Criteria # FMCSA-2026-0826
These comments are filed jointly by the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC), Citizens for Reliable ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 09, 2026 DOT Docket No. FMCSA-2026-0826 U.S. Department of Transportation West Building, Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Filed via www.regulations.gov Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) English Language Proficiency; Out of Service Criteria # FMCSA-2026-0826 These comments are filed jointly by the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC), Citizens for Reliableand Safe Highways (CRASH), Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T.), and our volunteers, who are the family and friends of truck crash victims and survivors seeking large truck safety improvements, in response to the NPRM for English Language Proficiency; Out of Service Criteria.
The ability for all truck drivers to read and understand traffic signs and signals has always been essential to ensure highway safety. It is also important for drivers to be able to converse sufficiently with law enforcement officials to support routine commercial motor vehicle enforcement needs during roadside inspections and other situations. This NPRM notes that this has been a federal requirement for truck drivers since 1936, as established by the Interstate Commerce Commission.1
Truck crash deaths have increased by 58 percent since 2009.2 For 2024, NHTSA estimates roughly 5,300 people lost their lives in crashes involving large trucks, with another 160,000 sustaining injuries.3
There is no question that an unknown number of preventable crashes are being caused, in part, because some drivers could neither read nor understand variable message road signs.
Consider the tragic, preventable truck crash that killed Connor Dzion. On September 4, 2017, Connor "Peanut" Dzion and eighty-eight other passengers traveling in twenty-one different
1 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, "English Language Proficiency; Out of Service Criteria," Federal Register, vol. 91, no. 152, 10 Aug. 2026, pp. 51422-31, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-10/pdf/2026-16288.pdf. Docket No. FMCSA-2026-0826.
2 Traffic Safety Facts, 2024 Data: Large Trucks, NHTSA, June. 2026, Table 7. DOT HS 813 816.
3 Id.
700 Pennsylvania Ave, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20003
vehicles were at a standstill in the middle of I-95 South. Stopped in stalled traffic due to a prior collision, Connor's vehicle was rear-ended by a semi-truck weighing 80,000 pounds and traveling at 70 mph. The truck driver sped past at least three roadside digital message boards containing the warning "SLOW DOWN! CRASH AHEAD!" The driver never attempted to slow down before plowing into and over Connor's car. Connor suffered in his vehicle with labored breathing as his body physically shut down several minutes later. The driver later admitted he could not read, speak, nor understand English.
This crash must be prevented before it ever happens at every opportunity, from California to Maine. Consistent enforcement will make it untenable for those motor carriers looking to cut corners to hire drivers that cannot comply with English Language Proficiency requirements. If it is no longer profitable for carriers to hire unqualified drivers, one can reasonably expect truck driver ELP noncompliance to decrease.
Connor's tragedy is far from the only instance in the Truck Safety Coalition victim-volunteer community where the offending truck driver who caused the fatal or severe injury crash could not read or speak English sufficiently. On behalf of all our victim community impacted by these senseless and preventable crashes, TSC applauds the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for proceeding with this safety-sensitive rulemaking.
Sincerely,
Zach Cahalan
Executive Director, Truck Safety Coalition (TSC)
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FMCSA-2026-0826-2182
October 09, 2026
DOT Docket No. FMCSA-2026-0826
U.S. Department of Transportation
West Building, Ground Floor
Room W12-140
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE,
Washington, D.C. 20590-0001
Filed via www.regulations.gov
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) English Language Proficiency; Out of Service Criteria # FMCSA-2026-0826
These comments are filed jointly by the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC), Citizens for Reliable ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 09, 2026 DOT Docket No. FMCSA-2026-0826 U.S. Department of Transportation West Building, Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Filed via www.regulations.gov Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) English Language Proficiency; Out of Service Criteria # FMCSA-2026-0826 These comments are filed jointly by the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC), Citizens for Reliableand Safe Highways (CRASH), Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T.), and our volunteers, who are the family and friends of truck crash victims and survivors seeking large truck safety improvements, in response to the NPRM for English Language Proficiency; Out of Service Criteria.
The ability for all truck drivers to read and understand traffic signs and signals has always been essential to ensure highway safety. It is also important for drivers to be able to converse sufficiently with law enforcement officials to support routine commercial motor vehicle enforcement needs during roadside inspections and other situations. This NPRM notes that this has been a federal requirement for truck drivers since 1936, as established by the Interstate Commerce Commission.1
Truck crash deaths have increased by 58 percent since 2009.2 For 2024, NHTSA estimates roughly 5,300 people lost their lives in crashes involving large trucks, with another 160,000 sustaining injuries.3
There is no question that an unknown number of preventable crashes are being caused, in part, because some drivers could neither read nor understand variable message road signs.
Consider the tragic, preventable truck crash that killed Connor Dzion. On September 4, 2017, Connor "Peanut" Dzion and eighty-eight other passengers traveling in twenty-one different
1 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, "English Language Proficiency; Out of Service Criteria," Federal Register, vol. 91, no. 152, 10 Aug. 2026, pp. 51422-31, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-10/pdf/2026-16288.pdf. Docket No. FMCSA-2026-0826.
2 Traffic Safety Facts, 2024 Data: Large Trucks, NHTSA, June. 2026, Table 7. DOT HS 813 816.
3 Id.
700 Pennsylvania Ave, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20003
vehicles were at a standstill in the middle of I-95 South. Stopped in stalled traffic due to a prior collision, Connor's vehicle was rear-ended by a semi-truck weighing 80,000 pounds and traveling at 70 mph. The truck driver sped past at least three roadside digital message boards containing the warning "SLOW DOWN! CRASH AHEAD!" The driver never attempted to slow down before plowing into and over Connor's car. Connor suffered in his vehicle with labored breathing as his body physically shut down several minutes later. The driver later admitted he could not read, speak, nor understand English.
This crash must be prevented before it ever happens at every opportunity, from California to Maine. Consistent enforcement will make it untenable for those motor carriers looking to cut corners to hire drivers that cannot comply with English Language Proficiency requirements. If it is no longer profitable for carriers to hire unqualified drivers, one can reasonably expect truck driver ELP noncompliance to decrease.
Connor's tragedy is far from the only instance in the Truck Safety Coalition victim-volunteer community where the offending truck driver who caused the fatal or severe injury crash could not read or speak English sufficiently. On behalf of all our victim community impacted by these senseless and preventable crashes, TSC applauds the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for proceeding with this safety-sensitive rulemaking.
Sincerely,
Zach Cahalan
Executive Director, Truck Safety Coalition (TSC)
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FMCSA-2026-0826-2182
3 Chicago Environmental Justice Groups Oppose HUD Proposal to Rescind Title VI Disparate Impact Rules
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
October 9, 2026
Regulations Division
Office of General Counsel
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street SW, Room 10276
Washington, DC 20410-0500
Re: Comments of the Southeast Environmental Task Force, People for Community Recovery and the Southeast Side Coalition to Ban Petcoke on HUD's Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's Disparate Impact Standard; Amendments to HUD's Title VI Regulations, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 9, 2026 Regulations Division Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276 Washington, DC 20410-0500 Re: Comments of the Southeast Environmental Task Force, People for Community Recovery and the Southeast Side Coalition to Ban Petcoke on HUD's Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's Disparate Impact Standard; Amendments to HUD's Title VI Regulations,Docket No. FR-6540-P-02.
We write, on behalf of Southeast Environmental Task Force (SETF), People for Community Recovery (PCR), and the Southeast Side Coalition to Ban Petcoke (Coalition) and their counsel, to oppose the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) proposed rule eliminating references to disparate-impact discrimination analysis in its Title VI regulations.
We write because disparate-impact liability under Title VI has been a crucial tool for protecting the health and wellbeing of residents of the Southeast Side of Chicago. Indeed, HUD's application of its existing Title VI disparate-impact regulations brought together the City of Chicago (City), SETF, PCR, and the Coalition to develop strategies that are modernizing and reforming the City's land use and environmental policies and practices, to the benefit of all residents of Chicago. A key purpose and primary benefit of including the disparate-impact analytical framework in HUD's Title VI regulations is not to require impermissible racial balancing in any government program or policy, but rather to help reveal and identify-as part of a holistic review of the evidence-discriminatory policies that can then be remediated through a HUD process aimed at conciliation. By removing disparate-impact liability, HUD's proposed rule would make it harder to raise and reveal local government policies that protect some groups of people less than others and, thereby, would limit communities' access to an administrative complaint process designed to facilitate productive negotiations between residents and the municipalities where they live.
Comments of SETF, PCR & the Southeast Side Coalition to Ban Petcoke
Docket No. FR-6540-P-02
2
I. Introduction
SETF, PCR, and the Coalition are community-based organizations representing residents of the Southeast Side of Chicago. The Southeast Side of Chicago is home to historically significant, working-class communities whose labor, industries, and cultural contributions helped build Chicago into an economic powerhouse. Yet those contributions have not been matched by equitable public health protections.
The Southeast Side of Chicago is recognized as an "environmental justice" community by the City, and an "area of environmental justice concern" by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, because it is disproportionately burdened by environmental harms due to a legacy of Chicago's land use decisions and the steel, other heavy manufacturing, and hazardous waste handling industries. SETF, PCR, and the Coalition advance recognition and reparation of the cumulative and disproportionate impacts of environmental harm to the Southeast Side through direct community service, organizing, education, and policy.
As explained in greater detail below, in September 2019, the City entered into an agreement with General Iron, a large metal shredding facility then located in a predominantly white, affluent northside neighborhood, to relocate General Iron's facility to the Southeast Side of Chicago, which is comprised of predominantly Black and Latine neighborhoods. The City's agreement to relocate General Iron would result in improvements in terms of environmental quality and environmental determinants of public health for a white, affluent neighborhood while it would impose environmental and public health burdens on Black and Latine neighborhoods already experiencing a disproportionately high share of environmental harms from existing pollution sources. As part of the broad public opposition to the relocation, SETF and the Coalition filed a complaint (Complaint) with HUD alleging the City's facilitation and acceptance of the relocation plan violated the Civil Rights Act and its implementing regulations.
In reviewing that Complaint, HUD applied, among other authorities, the disparate-impact Title VI regulations that the instant notice of rulemaking proposes to eliminate, and found that the City had discriminated against residents of the Southeast Side of Chicago on the basis of race and national origin.
Indeed, HUD found that the City's actions violated Title VI because those actions met the standards for both intentional discrimination and disparate-impacts discrimination.
In determining racially discriminatory intent, HUD applied the six-factor test delineated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., and concluded that the City violated Title VI and its implementing regulations. HUD's application of the Arlington Heights factor test illustrates that (1) the facts giving rise to claims for intentional discrimination and alleging disparate impacts often overlap and (2) the disparate impact and intentional discrimination frameworks work together to provide a more complete picture than offered by either framework alone.
After HUD's findings of a Title VI violation, the City and SETF and the Coalition negotiated and entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA). The VCA detailed remedial actions the City was required to take to resolve the City's non-compliance with Title VI. Through the VCA requirements, the City worked together with community members on the Southeast Side and throughout Chicago to modernize its industrial zoning and permitting practices and develop key environmental initiatives such as a robust Cumulative Impact Assessment and comprehensive citywide air monitoring system. These environmental initiatives have benefited not only Southeast Side residents but also residents across Chicago's various neighborhoods. HUD's existing disparate-impact regulations provided a framework for HUD, City leaders, and affected communities to work together to develop strategies addressing intentional and disparate-impact discrimination, which led to settlement and citywide reforms.
II. SETF, PCR, and the Coalition's Experience: The General Iron Story
a. General Iron and the City of Chicago
General Iron operated a large metal recycling facility that shredded cars, construction debris, and other scrap metal into base material for sale and disposal. In general, such metal recycling releases into the air heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, and cadmium and hazardous fumes, and exposure to such heavy metals causes long-term health issues such as brain and nervous system damage, elevated cancer risks, and respiratory problems like asthma.
General Iron's facility itself was repeatedly cited for violating environmental regulations and creating public nuisance conditions; it was the subject of persistent public complaints to officials.
General Iron's metal shredding facility was located in Lincoln Park, a predominantly white, affluent neighborhood on the North Side of Chicago. After years of complaints regarding noise, debris, toxic emissions, and odors from the General Iron facility and increasing pressure from Lincoln Park residents to relocate or shut down the General Iron facility on the North Side, the City began negotiations with General Iron to relocate its facility to the Southeast Side. In early 2017, City officials from the office of Mayor Rahm Emanuel privately negotiated with lobbyists representing General Iron to explore General Iron's relocation from Lincoln Park. Fueled by pressure to shut down or relocate General Iron from real estate developers planning investments in the area, residents of Lincoln Park, and Alderman Brian Hopkins, who represented the Lincoln Park neighborhood, these negotiations took place well before any formal City land use or permitting review processes. In July 2018, the City, General Iron, and Reserve Management Group (RMG), who eventually acquired General Iron, issued a public announcement of the relocation of General Iron to the Southeast Side. Ultimately, in September 2019, General Iron and the City signed an agreement to facilitate the wind down and relocation of General Iron's facility to the Southeast Side.
Generally, significant projects like the relocation of a large metal recycling plant are subject to land use and permitting requirements by the City that require applications, public hearings with adequate notice to key stakeholders, and reviews of various technical submissions before the City commits to a decision.
The agreement between the City and General Iron deviated from the proper processes of City Hall and, when pressed later, the City could not identify any similar agreement with private companies for similar purposes.
In early 2019, General Iron applied for a special use permit that would allow expansion of an existing Southeast Side property owned by RMG through the addition of General Iron's Lincoln Park operations. General Iron also applied for a zoning variance, or a formal request from zoning authorities to deviate from zoning requirements, to accommodate the heavy truck traffic anticipated with the proposed expansion. On March 15, 2019, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a hearing for both the special use permit and the zoning variance, but the Zoning Board of Appeals failed to ensure key stakeholders were notified of the meeting as required by Chicago Municipal Code 17-13-0107.
According to Chicago Municipal Code 17-13-0905-C, the Zoning Board of Appeals must "make specific findings on the probable effects of the proposed use on existing manufacturing activities, including the potential for land use conflicts and nuisance complaints." Despite six public nuisance complaints to the Chicago Department of Health (CDPH) of noise, offensive odors, and other objectionable conditions at the General Iron site on the North Side prior to the hearing on March 15, 2019, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that the proposed special use approval would have no negative effect, ignoring its Code obligation to address the potential for nuisance complaints. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved General Iron's special use permit and variance, again illustrating the City's deviation from formal practices and standards as required by Chicago Municipal Code.
In May 2019, Mayor Lori Lightfoot was elected, and the Lightfoot administration continued negotiations with General Iron. The City and General Iron agreed that its operations would leave Lincoln Park and relocate to the Southeast Side by the end of 2020.
b. The Southeast Side community responds to the proposed relocation of General Iron.
Upon public disclosure of the relocation plans and accelerating in 2020, community members on the Southeast Side pushed back against General Iron's relocation to the Southeast Side and the City's active involvement in the process. Community members organized "The Campaign to Stop General Iron." Through city-wide protests and a one-month hunger strike, community organizers and activists generated widespread awareness of the General Iron relocation and how this development fit into the broader environmental and land use issues concentrating public health harms associated with industrial development in their neighborhoods on the Southeast Side. Hundreds of Southeast Side residents and allies spoke at public town halls and hearings and submitted public comments opposing the relocation. In parallel with the community activism on the ground, SETF, PCR, and the Coalition pursued legal action by filing a complaint with HUD against the City of Chicago on August 12, 2020.
c. SETF and the Coalition file a complaint with HUD.
i. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 24 C.F.R. Part 1
The Complaint filed by SETF and the Coalition alleged that the City's involvement in the relocation of General Iron violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d - 2000d-4 and implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 1.
The City of Chicago administers "program[s and activit[ies] receiving Federal financial assistance" because the City receives and distributes various block grants through HUD and other departments.
Under 24 C.F.R. Sec.1.4(b)(1)(ii) and (iv) of the Code of Regulations (C.F.R.), the City may not, on the basis of race, color, or national origin: provide any housing, accommodations, facilities, services, financial aid, or other benefits to a person which are different, or are provided in a different manner, from those provided to others under the program or activity; or restrict a person in any way in access to such housing, accommodations, facilities, services, financial aid, or other benefits.
Furthermore, 24 C.F.R. Sec.1.4(b)(3) states: In determining the site or location of housing, accommodations, or facilities, an applicant or recipient may not make selections with the purpose or effect of . . . subjecting them to discrimination under any program to which [24 C.F.R.] part 1 applies, on the ground of race, color, or national origin.
The Complaint alleged that the City's actions violated Title VI and its implementing regulations by facilitating the relocation of General Iron and thereby subjecting Southeast Side residents to discrimination on the grounds of their race and national origin. The relocation of General Iron from Lincoln Park to the Southeast Side would exacerbate such socioeconomic and health inequities by shifting the pollution burden created by that facility from a predominately white affluent neighborhood to predominately Black and Brown, low-income neighborhoods with significantly higher existing air pollution levels and greater health vulnerabilities. At the time of the Complaint and decision to move General Iron, residents of the Lincoln Park neighborhood were 80% white, and residents of the Southeast Side neighborhoods were collectively 83% Black and Latine. In facilitating General Iron's relocation, the City chose to improve the predominantly white, affluent Lincoln Park neighborhood at the expense of predominantly Black and Brown, lower-income neighborhoods on the Southeast Side.
At the time of the September 2019 agreement between General Iron and the City, the City of Chicago knew about the disproportionate pollution burden borne by residents of the Southeast side as compared to Lincoln Park or the rest of the city in general. CDPH reports from 2016, 2020, and 2022 all identified Southeast Neighborhoods as disproportionately impacted by pollution and its negative health impacts. For example, in its 2022 Health Impact Assessment, CDPH reported:
Air pollution contributes to increased risk of chronic disease, which is the leading driver of Chicago's nine-year life expectancy gap between Black and White residents and decreases in life expectancy in the Latinx population . . . As of 2018, the population on the Southeast side had higher rates of chronic conditions such as coronary heart disease (CHD) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) in adults than the Chicago average.
In its "Healthy Chicago 2025 Strategic Plan" published in 2020, CDPH stated, "[i]n Chicago, the highest rates of heart disease and heart disease-related risk factors are seen on Chicago's South and West sides." In its 2020 Air Quality and Health Report, CDPH acknowledged that the City's "history of segregation and disinvestment in Black and Latinx communities" caused stark differences in health outcomes, socioeconomic status, and proximity of pollution between various neighborhoods today. More specifically, the City's history of segregation and disinvestment left residents of the Southeast Side to shoulder the burden of high rates of air pollution and consequential health impacts.
The specific relocation of General Iron was part of the City's broader policy of moving heavy industry from primarily white neighborhoods to primarily Black and Brown neighborhoods. In 2004 and 2016, the City codified twenty-six areas in Chicago as Industrial Corridors based on their historic use as a location for industrial facilities. In 2016, the City launched an Industrial Corridor Modernization Initiative which designated certain Industrial Corridors as either "Receiving Corridors,"-the previously-designated corridors where the City would deliberately funnel industrial activity to "reinforc[e] traditional industrial activities,"-or "Conversion Areas,"-other previously-designated industrial corridors that would be redeveloped for non-industrial uses.
At the time of the Southeast Side Complaint, residents in the three corridors designated as Conversion Areas were collectively 68% white, while the population of Receiving Corridors was only 20% white. The North Branch Corridor, where General Iron's Lincoln Park site was located, was designated as a Conversion Area while Calumet Corridor, where the Southeast Side site is located, was designated as a Receiving Corridor. The relocation of General Iron to the Southeast Side yet again reflected the City's policy of relocating heavy industry from predominantly white neighborhoods to predominantly Black and Brown neighborhoods.
Further, the City failed to fully consider the environmental and public health impacts of relocating General Iron to the Southeast Side and the community's substantive concerns despite requirements to assess community impacts and consider public input. As set forth in the Complaint, the City took inadequate steps to assess and minimize negative environmental impacts of the General Iron facility on the Southeast Side and did not consider any alternative sites outside of the Southeast Side. Despite requirements to hold public hearings and review various technical submissions, the City held only one public town hall before the City began issuing approvals and before General Iron rebuilt its facility on the Southeast Side. No air pollution modeling was done until after the agreement between the City and General Iron was signed, and the special use permit was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Finally, the City did not seriously evaluate the relocation's impact on the Southeast Side community until 2021, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recommended it "complete an environmental justice analysis . . . to meaningfully consider the aggregate potential health effects of the proposed RMG facility on the southeast area of Chicago." The City's knowledge of existing environmental burdens on Southeast Side residents, broader policies and practices that led to locating heavy industry to the South Side of Chicago, and failure to consider environmental impacts of the relocation on Southeast Side residents supported the Title VI claim. In accordance with 24 C.F.R. Sec.1.7(b), SETF and the Coalition filed a timely complaint on August 12, 2020, alleging the City of Chicago had violated Title VI and its implementing regulations under 24 C.F.R. Part 1. On October 2, 2020, HUD initiated an investigation under 24 C.F.R. Sec.1.7(c) and Sec.6.11(a) in response.
iii. HUD found that the City of Chicago violated Title VI.
On July 19, 2022, HUD issued a Letter of Findings to announce legal conclusions it had reached from its investigation. HUD found that the City's decision and actions to pursue the relocation of the General Iron facility were discriminatory on the basis of race and national origin. Thus, the City violated Title VI and its implementing regulations 24 C.F.R. Sec.1.4(b)(3), Sec.1.4(b)(1)(ii), (iv) and Sec.1.4(b)(2)(i).
In reaching its decision that racially discriminatory intent existed in this case, HUD applied the six-factor test delineated in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., and concluded that the City violated Title VI and its implementing regulations. (1) whether the consequences of an action bear more heavily on certain groups; (2) historical background of an action; (3) the specific sequence of events leading up the action; (4) departures from normal procedural process; (5) departures from normal substantive criteria; and (6) legislative and administrative history.
Even though the "factors are non-exhaustive and not all must be shown to establish a violation," HUD found in its decision that: all of these factors support a finding that the City's goal of relocating [General Iron's] Facility, and the manner in which the City pursued this goal were shaped by the race and national origin of the Southeast residents as compared to that of the Lincoln Park residents. HUD considered disparate racial impacts of the relocation as part of its broader, separate finding of intentional discrimination. Therefore, eliminating disparate-impact liability may remove one theory available in future Title VI cases, but it does not erase HUD's separate and significant finding in July of 2022 that the City intentionally discriminated in the General Iron matter.
This is why the General Iron case so well illustrates the shortcomings in the NPRM: Discrimination, in whatever shape or form, is detrimental to public health and well-being. Whether it was done as a result of intentional racial discrimination or the application of a facially race-neutral policy without regard for race-differentiated results, the relocation of General Iron would bring greater environmental harm to a predominantly Black and Brown neighborhood that is already disproportionately burdened by polluting facilities and hazardous waste disposal. And it would do so in a way that benefited a much wealthier, whiter community that already enjoys better environmental quality and higher levels of public health. Affected communities experience the practical consequences of discriminatory government action, such as its effects on health, safety, and quality of life, regardless of the legal theory used to describe how or why that conduct treats them worse than their fellow citizens.
VII. Conclusion
HUD's disparate-impact regulations have been a crucial tool for communities to identify and challenge discrimination since Title VI's passage. The General Iron story illustrates what is at stake in HUD's rollback of disparate-impact enforcement. For Southeast Side communities, Title VI regulations provided a mechanism to challenge a discriminatory decision that would have added a polluting facility to neighborhoods already shouldering a disproportionate share of Chicago's environmental burdens. HUD's Letter of Findings found that the City had violated Title VI under both intentional discrimination and disparate-impact theories. With the question of liability decided, HUD brought the City of Chicago together with Chicago communities. This resulted in a VCA with concrete, forward-looking and race-neutral reforms that benefit all the people of Chicago. The VCA paved the way for the City to remedy past discrimination, implement new tools for community participation, obtain information about cumulative environmental and social burdens, and account for those burdens in its decision-making. HUD's proposed rule risks narrowing this administrative avenue that led to success in the General Iron case. The agency's legal justifications are not persuasive, and the practical consequences of its proposed rule are far-reaching. The General Iron case demonstrates how closely intentional discrimination and disparate impact overlap in the real world. HUD's existing disparate-impact regulations under Title VI are an important means of identifying, preventing, and remedying the harms of discrimination. The NPRM proposes to eliminate that tool based on misguided and erroneous positions on the relevant legal and policy issues.
Comments of SETF, PCR & the Southeast Side Coalition to Ban Petcoke
Docket No. FR-6540-P-02
25
HUD's finding in the General Iron case will remain regardless of the agency's final rule here-as will the benefits that finding and the VCA have created in Chicago-but we urge HUD to not overlook the lessons of General Iron. Raising a disparate-impact claim through HUD's Title VI rules gave Southeast Side communities a meaningful avenue to challenge discrimination, bring the City to the table, and secure lasting reforms. For these reasons, SETF, PCR, and the Coalition urge HUD to not eliminate disparate-impact protections from its regulations under Title VI.
Respectfully submitted,
Oscar Sanchez
Executive Director
Southeast Environmental Taskforce
Cheryl Johnson
Executive Director
People for Community Recovery
Gina Ramirez
On behalf of Southside Coalition to Ban Petcoke
Robert Weinstock
Environmental Advocacy Center
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Keith Harley
Greater Chicago Legal Clinic
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HUD-2026-0034-0686
October 9, 2026
Regulations Division
Office of General Counsel
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street SW, Room 10276
Washington, DC 20410-0500
Re: Comments of the Southeast Environmental Task Force, People for Community Recovery and the Southeast Side Coalition to Ban Petcoke on HUD's Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's Disparate Impact Standard; Amendments to HUD's Title VI Regulations, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 9, 2026 Regulations Division Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276 Washington, DC 20410-0500 Re: Comments of the Southeast Environmental Task Force, People for Community Recovery and the Southeast Side Coalition to Ban Petcoke on HUD's Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's Disparate Impact Standard; Amendments to HUD's Title VI Regulations,Docket No. FR-6540-P-02.
We write, on behalf of Southeast Environmental Task Force (SETF), People for Community Recovery (PCR), and the Southeast Side Coalition to Ban Petcoke (Coalition) and their counsel, to oppose the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) proposed rule eliminating references to disparate-impact discrimination analysis in its Title VI regulations.
We write because disparate-impact liability under Title VI has been a crucial tool for protecting the health and wellbeing of residents of the Southeast Side of Chicago. Indeed, HUD's application of its existing Title VI disparate-impact regulations brought together the City of Chicago (City), SETF, PCR, and the Coalition to develop strategies that are modernizing and reforming the City's land use and environmental policies and practices, to the benefit of all residents of Chicago. A key purpose and primary benefit of including the disparate-impact analytical framework in HUD's Title VI regulations is not to require impermissible racial balancing in any government program or policy, but rather to help reveal and identify-as part of a holistic review of the evidence-discriminatory policies that can then be remediated through a HUD process aimed at conciliation. By removing disparate-impact liability, HUD's proposed rule would make it harder to raise and reveal local government policies that protect some groups of people less than others and, thereby, would limit communities' access to an administrative complaint process designed to facilitate productive negotiations between residents and the municipalities where they live.
Comments of SETF, PCR & the Southeast Side Coalition to Ban Petcoke
Docket No. FR-6540-P-02
2
I. Introduction
SETF, PCR, and the Coalition are community-based organizations representing residents of the Southeast Side of Chicago. The Southeast Side of Chicago is home to historically significant, working-class communities whose labor, industries, and cultural contributions helped build Chicago into an economic powerhouse. Yet those contributions have not been matched by equitable public health protections.
The Southeast Side of Chicago is recognized as an "environmental justice" community by the City, and an "area of environmental justice concern" by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, because it is disproportionately burdened by environmental harms due to a legacy of Chicago's land use decisions and the steel, other heavy manufacturing, and hazardous waste handling industries. SETF, PCR, and the Coalition advance recognition and reparation of the cumulative and disproportionate impacts of environmental harm to the Southeast Side through direct community service, organizing, education, and policy.
As explained in greater detail below, in September 2019, the City entered into an agreement with General Iron, a large metal shredding facility then located in a predominantly white, affluent northside neighborhood, to relocate General Iron's facility to the Southeast Side of Chicago, which is comprised of predominantly Black and Latine neighborhoods. The City's agreement to relocate General Iron would result in improvements in terms of environmental quality and environmental determinants of public health for a white, affluent neighborhood while it would impose environmental and public health burdens on Black and Latine neighborhoods already experiencing a disproportionately high share of environmental harms from existing pollution sources. As part of the broad public opposition to the relocation, SETF and the Coalition filed a complaint (Complaint) with HUD alleging the City's facilitation and acceptance of the relocation plan violated the Civil Rights Act and its implementing regulations.
In reviewing that Complaint, HUD applied, among other authorities, the disparate-impact Title VI regulations that the instant notice of rulemaking proposes to eliminate, and found that the City had discriminated against residents of the Southeast Side of Chicago on the basis of race and national origin.
Indeed, HUD found that the City's actions violated Title VI because those actions met the standards for both intentional discrimination and disparate-impacts discrimination.
In determining racially discriminatory intent, HUD applied the six-factor test delineated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., and concluded that the City violated Title VI and its implementing regulations. HUD's application of the Arlington Heights factor test illustrates that (1) the facts giving rise to claims for intentional discrimination and alleging disparate impacts often overlap and (2) the disparate impact and intentional discrimination frameworks work together to provide a more complete picture than offered by either framework alone.
After HUD's findings of a Title VI violation, the City and SETF and the Coalition negotiated and entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA). The VCA detailed remedial actions the City was required to take to resolve the City's non-compliance with Title VI. Through the VCA requirements, the City worked together with community members on the Southeast Side and throughout Chicago to modernize its industrial zoning and permitting practices and develop key environmental initiatives such as a robust Cumulative Impact Assessment and comprehensive citywide air monitoring system. These environmental initiatives have benefited not only Southeast Side residents but also residents across Chicago's various neighborhoods. HUD's existing disparate-impact regulations provided a framework for HUD, City leaders, and affected communities to work together to develop strategies addressing intentional and disparate-impact discrimination, which led to settlement and citywide reforms.
II. SETF, PCR, and the Coalition's Experience: The General Iron Story
a. General Iron and the City of Chicago
General Iron operated a large metal recycling facility that shredded cars, construction debris, and other scrap metal into base material for sale and disposal. In general, such metal recycling releases into the air heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, and cadmium and hazardous fumes, and exposure to such heavy metals causes long-term health issues such as brain and nervous system damage, elevated cancer risks, and respiratory problems like asthma.
General Iron's facility itself was repeatedly cited for violating environmental regulations and creating public nuisance conditions; it was the subject of persistent public complaints to officials.
General Iron's metal shredding facility was located in Lincoln Park, a predominantly white, affluent neighborhood on the North Side of Chicago. After years of complaints regarding noise, debris, toxic emissions, and odors from the General Iron facility and increasing pressure from Lincoln Park residents to relocate or shut down the General Iron facility on the North Side, the City began negotiations with General Iron to relocate its facility to the Southeast Side. In early 2017, City officials from the office of Mayor Rahm Emanuel privately negotiated with lobbyists representing General Iron to explore General Iron's relocation from Lincoln Park. Fueled by pressure to shut down or relocate General Iron from real estate developers planning investments in the area, residents of Lincoln Park, and Alderman Brian Hopkins, who represented the Lincoln Park neighborhood, these negotiations took place well before any formal City land use or permitting review processes. In July 2018, the City, General Iron, and Reserve Management Group (RMG), who eventually acquired General Iron, issued a public announcement of the relocation of General Iron to the Southeast Side. Ultimately, in September 2019, General Iron and the City signed an agreement to facilitate the wind down and relocation of General Iron's facility to the Southeast Side.
Generally, significant projects like the relocation of a large metal recycling plant are subject to land use and permitting requirements by the City that require applications, public hearings with adequate notice to key stakeholders, and reviews of various technical submissions before the City commits to a decision.
The agreement between the City and General Iron deviated from the proper processes of City Hall and, when pressed later, the City could not identify any similar agreement with private companies for similar purposes.
In early 2019, General Iron applied for a special use permit that would allow expansion of an existing Southeast Side property owned by RMG through the addition of General Iron's Lincoln Park operations. General Iron also applied for a zoning variance, or a formal request from zoning authorities to deviate from zoning requirements, to accommodate the heavy truck traffic anticipated with the proposed expansion. On March 15, 2019, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a hearing for both the special use permit and the zoning variance, but the Zoning Board of Appeals failed to ensure key stakeholders were notified of the meeting as required by Chicago Municipal Code 17-13-0107.
According to Chicago Municipal Code 17-13-0905-C, the Zoning Board of Appeals must "make specific findings on the probable effects of the proposed use on existing manufacturing activities, including the potential for land use conflicts and nuisance complaints." Despite six public nuisance complaints to the Chicago Department of Health (CDPH) of noise, offensive odors, and other objectionable conditions at the General Iron site on the North Side prior to the hearing on March 15, 2019, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that the proposed special use approval would have no negative effect, ignoring its Code obligation to address the potential for nuisance complaints. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved General Iron's special use permit and variance, again illustrating the City's deviation from formal practices and standards as required by Chicago Municipal Code.
In May 2019, Mayor Lori Lightfoot was elected, and the Lightfoot administration continued negotiations with General Iron. The City and General Iron agreed that its operations would leave Lincoln Park and relocate to the Southeast Side by the end of 2020.
b. The Southeast Side community responds to the proposed relocation of General Iron.
Upon public disclosure of the relocation plans and accelerating in 2020, community members on the Southeast Side pushed back against General Iron's relocation to the Southeast Side and the City's active involvement in the process. Community members organized "The Campaign to Stop General Iron." Through city-wide protests and a one-month hunger strike, community organizers and activists generated widespread awareness of the General Iron relocation and how this development fit into the broader environmental and land use issues concentrating public health harms associated with industrial development in their neighborhoods on the Southeast Side. Hundreds of Southeast Side residents and allies spoke at public town halls and hearings and submitted public comments opposing the relocation. In parallel with the community activism on the ground, SETF, PCR, and the Coalition pursued legal action by filing a complaint with HUD against the City of Chicago on August 12, 2020.
c. SETF and the Coalition file a complaint with HUD.
i. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 24 C.F.R. Part 1
The Complaint filed by SETF and the Coalition alleged that the City's involvement in the relocation of General Iron violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d - 2000d-4 and implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 1.
The City of Chicago administers "program[s and activit[ies] receiving Federal financial assistance" because the City receives and distributes various block grants through HUD and other departments.
Under 24 C.F.R. Sec.1.4(b)(1)(ii) and (iv) of the Code of Regulations (C.F.R.), the City may not, on the basis of race, color, or national origin: provide any housing, accommodations, facilities, services, financial aid, or other benefits to a person which are different, or are provided in a different manner, from those provided to others under the program or activity; or restrict a person in any way in access to such housing, accommodations, facilities, services, financial aid, or other benefits.
Furthermore, 24 C.F.R. Sec.1.4(b)(3) states: In determining the site or location of housing, accommodations, or facilities, an applicant or recipient may not make selections with the purpose or effect of . . . subjecting them to discrimination under any program to which [24 C.F.R.] part 1 applies, on the ground of race, color, or national origin.
The Complaint alleged that the City's actions violated Title VI and its implementing regulations by facilitating the relocation of General Iron and thereby subjecting Southeast Side residents to discrimination on the grounds of their race and national origin. The relocation of General Iron from Lincoln Park to the Southeast Side would exacerbate such socioeconomic and health inequities by shifting the pollution burden created by that facility from a predominately white affluent neighborhood to predominately Black and Brown, low-income neighborhoods with significantly higher existing air pollution levels and greater health vulnerabilities. At the time of the Complaint and decision to move General Iron, residents of the Lincoln Park neighborhood were 80% white, and residents of the Southeast Side neighborhoods were collectively 83% Black and Latine. In facilitating General Iron's relocation, the City chose to improve the predominantly white, affluent Lincoln Park neighborhood at the expense of predominantly Black and Brown, lower-income neighborhoods on the Southeast Side.
At the time of the September 2019 agreement between General Iron and the City, the City of Chicago knew about the disproportionate pollution burden borne by residents of the Southeast side as compared to Lincoln Park or the rest of the city in general. CDPH reports from 2016, 2020, and 2022 all identified Southeast Neighborhoods as disproportionately impacted by pollution and its negative health impacts. For example, in its 2022 Health Impact Assessment, CDPH reported:
Air pollution contributes to increased risk of chronic disease, which is the leading driver of Chicago's nine-year life expectancy gap between Black and White residents and decreases in life expectancy in the Latinx population . . . As of 2018, the population on the Southeast side had higher rates of chronic conditions such as coronary heart disease (CHD) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) in adults than the Chicago average.
In its "Healthy Chicago 2025 Strategic Plan" published in 2020, CDPH stated, "[i]n Chicago, the highest rates of heart disease and heart disease-related risk factors are seen on Chicago's South and West sides." In its 2020 Air Quality and Health Report, CDPH acknowledged that the City's "history of segregation and disinvestment in Black and Latinx communities" caused stark differences in health outcomes, socioeconomic status, and proximity of pollution between various neighborhoods today. More specifically, the City's history of segregation and disinvestment left residents of the Southeast Side to shoulder the burden of high rates of air pollution and consequential health impacts.
The specific relocation of General Iron was part of the City's broader policy of moving heavy industry from primarily white neighborhoods to primarily Black and Brown neighborhoods. In 2004 and 2016, the City codified twenty-six areas in Chicago as Industrial Corridors based on their historic use as a location for industrial facilities. In 2016, the City launched an Industrial Corridor Modernization Initiative which designated certain Industrial Corridors as either "Receiving Corridors,"-the previously-designated corridors where the City would deliberately funnel industrial activity to "reinforc[e] traditional industrial activities,"-or "Conversion Areas,"-other previously-designated industrial corridors that would be redeveloped for non-industrial uses.
At the time of the Southeast Side Complaint, residents in the three corridors designated as Conversion Areas were collectively 68% white, while the population of Receiving Corridors was only 20% white. The North Branch Corridor, where General Iron's Lincoln Park site was located, was designated as a Conversion Area while Calumet Corridor, where the Southeast Side site is located, was designated as a Receiving Corridor. The relocation of General Iron to the Southeast Side yet again reflected the City's policy of relocating heavy industry from predominantly white neighborhoods to predominantly Black and Brown neighborhoods.
Further, the City failed to fully consider the environmental and public health impacts of relocating General Iron to the Southeast Side and the community's substantive concerns despite requirements to assess community impacts and consider public input. As set forth in the Complaint, the City took inadequate steps to assess and minimize negative environmental impacts of the General Iron facility on the Southeast Side and did not consider any alternative sites outside of the Southeast Side. Despite requirements to hold public hearings and review various technical submissions, the City held only one public town hall before the City began issuing approvals and before General Iron rebuilt its facility on the Southeast Side. No air pollution modeling was done until after the agreement between the City and General Iron was signed, and the special use permit was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Finally, the City did not seriously evaluate the relocation's impact on the Southeast Side community until 2021, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recommended it "complete an environmental justice analysis . . . to meaningfully consider the aggregate potential health effects of the proposed RMG facility on the southeast area of Chicago." The City's knowledge of existing environmental burdens on Southeast Side residents, broader policies and practices that led to locating heavy industry to the South Side of Chicago, and failure to consider environmental impacts of the relocation on Southeast Side residents supported the Title VI claim. In accordance with 24 C.F.R. Sec.1.7(b), SETF and the Coalition filed a timely complaint on August 12, 2020, alleging the City of Chicago had violated Title VI and its implementing regulations under 24 C.F.R. Part 1. On October 2, 2020, HUD initiated an investigation under 24 C.F.R. Sec.1.7(c) and Sec.6.11(a) in response.
iii. HUD found that the City of Chicago violated Title VI.
On July 19, 2022, HUD issued a Letter of Findings to announce legal conclusions it had reached from its investigation. HUD found that the City's decision and actions to pursue the relocation of the General Iron facility were discriminatory on the basis of race and national origin. Thus, the City violated Title VI and its implementing regulations 24 C.F.R. Sec.1.4(b)(3), Sec.1.4(b)(1)(ii), (iv) and Sec.1.4(b)(2)(i).
In reaching its decision that racially discriminatory intent existed in this case, HUD applied the six-factor test delineated in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., and concluded that the City violated Title VI and its implementing regulations. (1) whether the consequences of an action bear more heavily on certain groups; (2) historical background of an action; (3) the specific sequence of events leading up the action; (4) departures from normal procedural process; (5) departures from normal substantive criteria; and (6) legislative and administrative history.
Even though the "factors are non-exhaustive and not all must be shown to establish a violation," HUD found in its decision that: all of these factors support a finding that the City's goal of relocating [General Iron's] Facility, and the manner in which the City pursued this goal were shaped by the race and national origin of the Southeast residents as compared to that of the Lincoln Park residents. HUD considered disparate racial impacts of the relocation as part of its broader, separate finding of intentional discrimination. Therefore, eliminating disparate-impact liability may remove one theory available in future Title VI cases, but it does not erase HUD's separate and significant finding in July of 2022 that the City intentionally discriminated in the General Iron matter.
This is why the General Iron case so well illustrates the shortcomings in the NPRM: Discrimination, in whatever shape or form, is detrimental to public health and well-being. Whether it was done as a result of intentional racial discrimination or the application of a facially race-neutral policy without regard for race-differentiated results, the relocation of General Iron would bring greater environmental harm to a predominantly Black and Brown neighborhood that is already disproportionately burdened by polluting facilities and hazardous waste disposal. And it would do so in a way that benefited a much wealthier, whiter community that already enjoys better environmental quality and higher levels of public health. Affected communities experience the practical consequences of discriminatory government action, such as its effects on health, safety, and quality of life, regardless of the legal theory used to describe how or why that conduct treats them worse than their fellow citizens.
VII. Conclusion
HUD's disparate-impact regulations have been a crucial tool for communities to identify and challenge discrimination since Title VI's passage. The General Iron story illustrates what is at stake in HUD's rollback of disparate-impact enforcement. For Southeast Side communities, Title VI regulations provided a mechanism to challenge a discriminatory decision that would have added a polluting facility to neighborhoods already shouldering a disproportionate share of Chicago's environmental burdens. HUD's Letter of Findings found that the City had violated Title VI under both intentional discrimination and disparate-impact theories. With the question of liability decided, HUD brought the City of Chicago together with Chicago communities. This resulted in a VCA with concrete, forward-looking and race-neutral reforms that benefit all the people of Chicago. The VCA paved the way for the City to remedy past discrimination, implement new tools for community participation, obtain information about cumulative environmental and social burdens, and account for those burdens in its decision-making. HUD's proposed rule risks narrowing this administrative avenue that led to success in the General Iron case. The agency's legal justifications are not persuasive, and the practical consequences of its proposed rule are far-reaching. The General Iron case demonstrates how closely intentional discrimination and disparate impact overlap in the real world. HUD's existing disparate-impact regulations under Title VI are an important means of identifying, preventing, and remedying the harms of discrimination. The NPRM proposes to eliminate that tool based on misguided and erroneous positions on the relevant legal and policy issues.
Comments of SETF, PCR & the Southeast Side Coalition to Ban Petcoke
Docket No. FR-6540-P-02
25
HUD's finding in the General Iron case will remain regardless of the agency's final rule here-as will the benefits that finding and the VCA have created in Chicago-but we urge HUD to not overlook the lessons of General Iron. Raising a disparate-impact claim through HUD's Title VI rules gave Southeast Side communities a meaningful avenue to challenge discrimination, bring the City to the table, and secure lasting reforms. For these reasons, SETF, PCR, and the Coalition urge HUD to not eliminate disparate-impact protections from its regulations under Title VI.
Respectfully submitted,
Oscar Sanchez
Executive Director
Southeast Environmental Taskforce
Cheryl Johnson
Executive Director
People for Community Recovery
Gina Ramirez
On behalf of Southside Coalition to Ban Petcoke
Robert Weinstock
Environmental Advocacy Center
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Keith Harley
Greater Chicago Legal Clinic
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HUD-2026-0034-0686
26 Vermont Lawmakers Urge HHS to Withdraw Proposed Head Start Regulation Changes to Protect Quality and Equity
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
October 6, 2026
The Honorable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Office of the Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington DC, 20201
Re: "Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs" (RIN 0970-AD30)
Dear Secretary Kennedy:
We the undersigned are elected lawmakers from the state of Vermont representing a broad cross-section of constituents, including rural, urban, and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 6, 2026 The Honorable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Office of the Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington DC, 20201 Re: "Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs" (RIN 0970-AD30) Dear Secretary Kennedy: We the undersigned are elected lawmakers from the state of Vermont representing a broad cross-section of constituents, including rural, urban, andsuburban communities. We write today to express our concerns and request the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS's) to withdraw the proposed rule (Docket ID ACF-2026-0364: RIN 0970-AD30) changing Head Start program regulations. We believe that the proposed rule will undermine Vermont's ability to offer our most vulnerable children the highest quality education, help them prepare for school, and effectively meet their families' needs.
Head Start programs are places where every child - including children with disabilities, children experiencing homelessness, children from New American families, and children in the foster care system - is educated, cared for and valued. Head Start is designed to ensure that each child's experience is tailored to meet their unique needs within the family and community context. Head Start also supports children and families in accessing health, dental, and other services that bolster children's well-being. And they partner with parents as their child's first teacher, arming them with the skills to be lifelong advocates for education.
For over 60 years, Head Start's evidence- based regulatory framework has been the gold-standard for childcare programs across the country. Head Start's evidence- based regulatory framework has been the subject of reams of research over the years - research that consistently proves remarkably successful outcomes for the most vulnerable children and families. We are not aware of any evidence that supports the radical programmatic changes in the proposed rule. As we say in Vermont, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Concerns
The recently proposed rule (Docket ID ACF-2026-0364: RIN 0970-AD30) would negatively impact Head Start's long tradition of offering it's gold-standard education for our children. The proposed changes would cut the heart out of the Head Start program, removing the high-quality standards that keep class sizes small, ensure teachers are trained and supported, value bilingualism and biliteracy as strengths, and offer services like timely medical and dental screenings to address a child's school readiness.
These quality standards are the hallmark of the Head Start program that ensure every child receives an early education and services that promote healthy child development. Without them, Head Start will exist in name only. If finalized, these changes would mean that a child could be turned away from Head Start because of a disability. The proposal would also make it more difficult for families experiencing homelessness to enroll. These changes would particularly harm Black children, Latino children, and children with disabilities, who, nationally, make up 29%, 40%, and 15% of Head Start participants respectively. This proposed rule would fundamentally alter Head Start and break the promise that America has made good on for decades to offer the children born furthest from opportunity with the best our country has to offer in early childhood education.
We are also concerned that HHS's proposal to lower the percentage of funds available to pay for programs' administrative costs will exacerbate existing funding issues caused by a lack of increased federal funding and rising inflation and program operation costs over the years. We worry about the sustainability of the programs that are vital to our communities. Head Start programs are critical employers and drivers of the local economy, and we are concerned that restricting their already tight budgets could affect their ability to retain staff, serve as a steady employer, provide reliable care so that parents can work, and engage with local businesses.
Conclusion
We're asking the Administration to continue the 60-year commitment of ensuring high-quality, impactful educational opportunities for families through our Head Start programs. To that end, we respectfully urge the Administration to withdraw this Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
Sincerely,
Senator Andrew Perchlik, Chair, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Senator Ginny Lyons, Chair, Senate Committee on Health & Welfare
Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair, Senate Committee on Appropriations
Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Majority Leader, Senate Committee on Education
Senator Ruth Hardy, Senate Committee on Finance
Senator Martine Larocque Gulick, Senate Committee on Finance
Representative Robin Scheu, Chair, House Committee on Appropriations
Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Committee on Human Services
Representative Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Committee on Judiciary
Representative Lori Houghton, Majority Leader, House Committee on Health Care
Representative Daisy Berbeco, Vice-Chair, House Committee on Health Care
Representative Rey Garofano, Vice-Chair, House Committee on Human Services
Representative James Gregoire, Vice-Chair, House Committee on Corrections & Institutions
Representative Lisa Hango, Vice-Chair, House Committee on Government Operations & Military Affairs
Representative Doug Bishop, House Committee on Human Services
Representative Michelle Bos-Lun, House Committee on Agriculture
Representative Ela Chapin, House Committee on Environment
Representative Karen Dolan, House Committee on Judiciary
Representative Gina Galfetti, House Corrections & Institutions Committee
Representative Leanne Harple, House Committee on Education
Representative Robert Hunter, House Committee on Education
Representative Larry Satcowitz, House Committee on Environment
Representative Jim Masland, House Committee on Ways & Means
Representative Brian Minier, House Corrections & Institutions Committee
Representative Mike Mrowicki, House Committee on Appropriations
Representative Monique Priestley, House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ACF-2026-0595-35050
October 6, 2026
The Honorable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Office of the Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington DC, 20201
Re: "Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs" (RIN 0970-AD30)
Dear Secretary Kennedy:
We the undersigned are elected lawmakers from the state of Vermont representing a broad cross-section of constituents, including rural, urban, and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. October 6, 2026 The Honorable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Office of the Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington DC, 20201 Re: "Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs" (RIN 0970-AD30) Dear Secretary Kennedy: We the undersigned are elected lawmakers from the state of Vermont representing a broad cross-section of constituents, including rural, urban, andsuburban communities. We write today to express our concerns and request the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS's) to withdraw the proposed rule (Docket ID ACF-2026-0364: RIN 0970-AD30) changing Head Start program regulations. We believe that the proposed rule will undermine Vermont's ability to offer our most vulnerable children the highest quality education, help them prepare for school, and effectively meet their families' needs.
Head Start programs are places where every child - including children with disabilities, children experiencing homelessness, children from New American families, and children in the foster care system - is educated, cared for and valued. Head Start is designed to ensure that each child's experience is tailored to meet their unique needs within the family and community context. Head Start also supports children and families in accessing health, dental, and other services that bolster children's well-being. And they partner with parents as their child's first teacher, arming them with the skills to be lifelong advocates for education.
For over 60 years, Head Start's evidence- based regulatory framework has been the gold-standard for childcare programs across the country. Head Start's evidence- based regulatory framework has been the subject of reams of research over the years - research that consistently proves remarkably successful outcomes for the most vulnerable children and families. We are not aware of any evidence that supports the radical programmatic changes in the proposed rule. As we say in Vermont, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Concerns
The recently proposed rule (Docket ID ACF-2026-0364: RIN 0970-AD30) would negatively impact Head Start's long tradition of offering it's gold-standard education for our children. The proposed changes would cut the heart out of the Head Start program, removing the high-quality standards that keep class sizes small, ensure teachers are trained and supported, value bilingualism and biliteracy as strengths, and offer services like timely medical and dental screenings to address a child's school readiness.
These quality standards are the hallmark of the Head Start program that ensure every child receives an early education and services that promote healthy child development. Without them, Head Start will exist in name only. If finalized, these changes would mean that a child could be turned away from Head Start because of a disability. The proposal would also make it more difficult for families experiencing homelessness to enroll. These changes would particularly harm Black children, Latino children, and children with disabilities, who, nationally, make up 29%, 40%, and 15% of Head Start participants respectively. This proposed rule would fundamentally alter Head Start and break the promise that America has made good on for decades to offer the children born furthest from opportunity with the best our country has to offer in early childhood education.
We are also concerned that HHS's proposal to lower the percentage of funds available to pay for programs' administrative costs will exacerbate existing funding issues caused by a lack of increased federal funding and rising inflation and program operation costs over the years. We worry about the sustainability of the programs that are vital to our communities. Head Start programs are critical employers and drivers of the local economy, and we are concerned that restricting their already tight budgets could affect their ability to retain staff, serve as a steady employer, provide reliable care so that parents can work, and engage with local businesses.
Conclusion
We're asking the Administration to continue the 60-year commitment of ensuring high-quality, impactful educational opportunities for families through our Head Start programs. To that end, we respectfully urge the Administration to withdraw this Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
Sincerely,
Senator Andrew Perchlik, Chair, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Senator Ginny Lyons, Chair, Senate Committee on Health & Welfare
Senator Seth Bongartz, Chair, Senate Committee on Appropriations
Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Majority Leader, Senate Committee on Education
Senator Ruth Hardy, Senate Committee on Finance
Senator Martine Larocque Gulick, Senate Committee on Finance
Representative Robin Scheu, Chair, House Committee on Appropriations
Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Committee on Human Services
Representative Martin LaLonde, Chair, House Committee on Judiciary
Representative Lori Houghton, Majority Leader, House Committee on Health Care
Representative Daisy Berbeco, Vice-Chair, House Committee on Health Care
Representative Rey Garofano, Vice-Chair, House Committee on Human Services
Representative James Gregoire, Vice-Chair, House Committee on Corrections & Institutions
Representative Lisa Hango, Vice-Chair, House Committee on Government Operations & Military Affairs
Representative Doug Bishop, House Committee on Human Services
Representative Michelle Bos-Lun, House Committee on Agriculture
Representative Ela Chapin, House Committee on Environment
Representative Karen Dolan, House Committee on Judiciary
Representative Gina Galfetti, House Corrections & Institutions Committee
Representative Leanne Harple, House Committee on Education
Representative Robert Hunter, House Committee on Education
Representative Larry Satcowitz, House Committee on Environment
Representative Jim Masland, House Committee on Ways & Means
Representative Brian Minier, House Corrections & Institutions Committee
Representative Mike Mrowicki, House Committee on Appropriations
Representative Monique Priestley, House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ACF-2026-0595-35050