Public Comments on Proposed Federal Rules
Here's a look at public comments on proposed Federal Register rules
More Recent Headlines
Featured Stories
Montana Wool Growers Association Urges Support for Alternative 1 in Grizzly Bear Management Plan
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
September 29, 2026
Mr. Dalin Tidwell
Montana Wildlife Services State Director
USDA APHIS Wildlife Services
P.O. Box 1938
Billings, MT 59103
Submitted electronically to regulations.gov
Re: Proposed DEIS - Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana
Dear Mr. Tidwell:
The Montana Wool Growers Association (MWGA) provides these comments on behalf of its members. MWGA membership consists of hundreds of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. September 29, 2026 Mr. Dalin Tidwell Montana Wildlife Services State Director USDA APHIS Wildlife Services P.O. Box 1938 Billings, MT 59103 Submitted electronically to regulations.gov Re: Proposed DEIS - Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Dear Mr. Tidwell: The Montana Wool Growers Association (MWGA) provides these comments on behalf of its members. MWGA membership consists of hundreds offamilies and individuals throughout Montana who rely on sheep, goat, and wool production as a primary source of income. Decisions regarding grizzly bear management directly affect these individuals and their livelihoods. Grizzly bears pose a direct threat to members' families, animals, and crops. They also reduce the profitability of livestock operations through increased costs of livestock protection and predator-control activities, reduced grazing opportunities, and stress-related health effects on livestock and livestock producers who live near grizzly bears.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) Wildlife Services program is an essential component of predator control in Montana. Montana Wildlife Services has a long history of working with livestock producers and is well-respected as an efficient, effective program that benefits both agricultural producers and wildlife populations.
MWGA supports Montana Wildlife Service's selection of Alternative 1. Alternative 1 is the only alternative that will balance the need for human and livestock protection with the conservation objectives associated with grizzly bear management. Any alternative that calls for less involvement by Montana Wildlife Services will reduce social tolerance for grizzly bears, shift the burden of grizzly bear management to less qualified individuals, and increase the likelihood of incidental take. Most importantly, Alternative 1 is the only alternative that aligns with Montana Wildlife Service's statutory authority and contractual obligations.
MWGA stresses the importance of emphasizing Montana Wildlife Service's limited decision-making authority with respect to grizzly bears. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an environmental impact statement only for "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(C). A "major Federal action[]" is an action performed by the agency that is "subject to substantial Federal control and responsibility" and does not include "activities or decisions that are non-discretionary and made in accordance with the agency's statutory authority." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4336e(10). The Secretary of Agriculture is statutorily authorized to "conduct a program of wildlife services with respect to injurious animal species and take any action the Secretary considers necessary in conducting the program." The nature of the program is limited by the Endangered Species Act.
Montana Wildlife Services is a contractor that carries out the decisions of the agency responsible for managing the relevant wildlife. Any alternatives considered in the final EIS must clearly stem from the sole decision within Montana Wildlife Service's authority: whether or not to contract with the agency. The EIS should be careful not to confuse Montana Wildlife Service's decision-making authority (deciding whether to enter into a contract) with the managing agency's decision-making authority (deciding when and where to engage in lethal or non-lethal removal of specific grizzly bears).
Montana Wildlife Services should reject any alternative that would prevent it from fulfilling its statutory role or satisfying the terms of its contractual obligations. Montana Wildlife Services should reject any alternative that would impede its ability to fully comply with its contracts with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Montana, and all other authorized agencies, tribes, and other contracting parties. Montana Wildlife Services should further be clear in its analysis in the DEIS that decisions related to grizzly bear removal are outside the scope of its agency action.
MWGA urges the agency to more thoroughly explore the consequences to Montana livestock producers, FWS, and Montana if Montana Wildlife Services were to elect not to contract for grizzly bear damage management activities in Montana, including the economic impact to producers, Montana, and the United States. MWGA also urges Wildlife Services to delineate the cost of each proposed alternative and how that expense would be covered if Wildlife Services did not renew its contracts.
Finally, MWGA points to one flawed statutory reference at 3.4.1. The statute that governs grizzly bears threatening, attacking, or killing livestock in Montana is Montana Code Annotated Section Sec. 87-5-301(c).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
L. Scott Blackman
MWGA President
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/APHIS-2025-0004-0148
September 29, 2026
Mr. Dalin Tidwell
Montana Wildlife Services State Director
USDA APHIS Wildlife Services
P.O. Box 1938
Billings, MT 59103
Submitted electronically to regulations.gov
Re: Proposed DEIS - Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana
Dear Mr. Tidwell:
The Montana Wool Growers Association (MWGA) provides these comments on behalf of its members. MWGA membership consists of hundreds of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. September 29, 2026 Mr. Dalin Tidwell Montana Wildlife Services State Director USDA APHIS Wildlife Services P.O. Box 1938 Billings, MT 59103 Submitted electronically to regulations.gov Re: Proposed DEIS - Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Dear Mr. Tidwell: The Montana Wool Growers Association (MWGA) provides these comments on behalf of its members. MWGA membership consists of hundreds offamilies and individuals throughout Montana who rely on sheep, goat, and wool production as a primary source of income. Decisions regarding grizzly bear management directly affect these individuals and their livelihoods. Grizzly bears pose a direct threat to members' families, animals, and crops. They also reduce the profitability of livestock operations through increased costs of livestock protection and predator-control activities, reduced grazing opportunities, and stress-related health effects on livestock and livestock producers who live near grizzly bears.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) Wildlife Services program is an essential component of predator control in Montana. Montana Wildlife Services has a long history of working with livestock producers and is well-respected as an efficient, effective program that benefits both agricultural producers and wildlife populations.
MWGA supports Montana Wildlife Service's selection of Alternative 1. Alternative 1 is the only alternative that will balance the need for human and livestock protection with the conservation objectives associated with grizzly bear management. Any alternative that calls for less involvement by Montana Wildlife Services will reduce social tolerance for grizzly bears, shift the burden of grizzly bear management to less qualified individuals, and increase the likelihood of incidental take. Most importantly, Alternative 1 is the only alternative that aligns with Montana Wildlife Service's statutory authority and contractual obligations.
MWGA stresses the importance of emphasizing Montana Wildlife Service's limited decision-making authority with respect to grizzly bears. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an environmental impact statement only for "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(C). A "major Federal action[]" is an action performed by the agency that is "subject to substantial Federal control and responsibility" and does not include "activities or decisions that are non-discretionary and made in accordance with the agency's statutory authority." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4336e(10). The Secretary of Agriculture is statutorily authorized to "conduct a program of wildlife services with respect to injurious animal species and take any action the Secretary considers necessary in conducting the program." The nature of the program is limited by the Endangered Species Act.
Montana Wildlife Services is a contractor that carries out the decisions of the agency responsible for managing the relevant wildlife. Any alternatives considered in the final EIS must clearly stem from the sole decision within Montana Wildlife Service's authority: whether or not to contract with the agency. The EIS should be careful not to confuse Montana Wildlife Service's decision-making authority (deciding whether to enter into a contract) with the managing agency's decision-making authority (deciding when and where to engage in lethal or non-lethal removal of specific grizzly bears).
Montana Wildlife Services should reject any alternative that would prevent it from fulfilling its statutory role or satisfying the terms of its contractual obligations. Montana Wildlife Services should reject any alternative that would impede its ability to fully comply with its contracts with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Montana, and all other authorized agencies, tribes, and other contracting parties. Montana Wildlife Services should further be clear in its analysis in the DEIS that decisions related to grizzly bear removal are outside the scope of its agency action.
MWGA urges the agency to more thoroughly explore the consequences to Montana livestock producers, FWS, and Montana if Montana Wildlife Services were to elect not to contract for grizzly bear damage management activities in Montana, including the economic impact to producers, Montana, and the United States. MWGA also urges Wildlife Services to delineate the cost of each proposed alternative and how that expense would be covered if Wildlife Services did not renew its contracts.
Finally, MWGA points to one flawed statutory reference at 3.4.1. The statute that governs grizzly bears threatening, attacking, or killing livestock in Montana is Montana Code Annotated Section Sec. 87-5-301(c).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
L. Scott Blackman
MWGA President
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/APHIS-2025-0004-0148
Animal Counsel Extern Koop Urges to Use Objective Damage Standards and Non-Lethal Methods to Protect Grizzly Bears
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
29 September 2026
Dalin Tidwell
Montana Wildlife Services State Director
USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services
PO Box 1938
Billings, MT 59103
Re: Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
Docket (APHIS-2025-0004)
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"). My name ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. 29 September 2026 Dalin Tidwell Montana Wildlife Services State Director USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services PO Box 1938 Billings, MT 59103 Re: Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement Docket (APHIS-2025-0004) Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"). My nameis Allyson Koop, and I am writing as an Extern on behalf of Animal Counsel, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting animals and their habitats through law and policy. We seek to conserve wild populations while simultaneously promoting individual animal welfare.
I would first like to express gratitude to the Agency for its conservation efforts.
Throughout the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Montana Wildlife Services has demonstrated a commitment to balancing human interests with those of the environment. With that being said, there are some areas of the Environmental Impact Statement that could be improved or require further information. For the best possible Grizzly Bear Damage Management plan, I urge Wildlife Services to address all possible issues associated with its current plan.
The feedback provided is meant to ensure the Agency's compliance with applicable
federal laws. Under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Agency is required to include in its report detailed statements on all reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of 1
the proposed agency action.1 Additionally, the Agency "shall identify. . .methods and procedures which will ensure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making . . . ."2 To properly hold the Agency accountable under NEPA, I raise suggestions on reasonable changes and awareness on areas where the Agency may need to provide more information for appropriate consideration in decision-making.
Additionally, since this is a DEIS, I would like to remind the Agency that the final EIS it produces could be subject to judicial review. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court may "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."3 As my feedback highlights, there are areas of the DEIS that currently lack the clarity required under NEPA. Thus, I ask that the Agency take these suggestions seriously so that it can create the best Grizzly Bear Management Plan possible.
3 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(a).
2 42 USCS Sec. 4332(B)
1 42 USCS Sec. 4332(C)(i)
2
Summarized Asks and Comments for Montana-WS
1) Utilize an objective definition of "damage."
2) Clarify how a determination of loss as reported or verified impacts the agency's course of action.
3) Clarify what reasonable non-lethal methods are utilized before the use of lethal methods.
4) Analyze the practicality of implementing a management plan that utilizes only non-lethal technical and direct assistance.
5) Clarify the Agency's role in the killing of grizzly bears through technical assistance.
6) Abolish lethal methods through technical assistance.
7) Please address the varying degrees of harm that grizzly bears may face with the different lethal and non-lethal methods.
8) Implement non-lethal methods that attract bears to their natural habitat rather than deterring bears from populated areas.
9) Implement an agency-wide goal of advancing animal well-being.
3
1) Utilize an objective definition of "damage."
The most concerning part of the DEIS is how the Agency defines damage. The damage in question is the basis for any agency action so how it is defined is important to the implementation of the plan. Here is how the agency currently defines the term:
The term "damage" in the case of GBDM is consistently used to describe situations where the individual person or entity has determined that the losses caused by grizzly bears has triggered their threshold for requesting assistance or attempting to resolve the issue themselves. "Damage" may be defined as economic losses to property or assets, or threats to human or pet safety. The threshold triggering a request for assistance in dealing with a particular damage situation is often unique to the individual person, entity, or agency requesting assistance. Therefore, what constitutes damage to one person or entity and considered intolerable may not even be considered a problem by another individual or entity.
4
The Agency makes it clear itself that what constitutes damage is essentially up to the complainant. Such a subjective test for agency action is deeply concerning where the agency's action is possibly the death of a grizzly bear. Additionally, this subjective standard will have an irreversible environmental impact that is difficult to predict without a more objective standard.
This threshold for damage is going to result in more harm to the bears than an objective threshold because the complainants get to determine what the bears life is worth AND they are already upset about the bears activity (at least enough to report to WS-Montana). "Human tolerance, much more than habitat, genetics, or food resources, will determine where bears exist and at what density levels into the future."5 Without an objective definition of damage, there is nothing in place to protect this threatened species against the potential emotional whims of land owners.
5 Wildearth Guardians v. Bucknall, 756 F. Supp. 3d 1017, 1027.
4 Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement, p. 140 (emphasis added).
4
2) Clarify how a determination of damage as reported or verified impacts the agency's course of action.
To best analyze the DEIS, the Agency must clarify whether it takes different approaches to grizzly bear management when damage is simply reported versus when it has been verified by the Agency. Throughout the DEIS, the Agency references two categories of damage: verified and reported. According to the DEIS, Montana livestock producers reported $2,548,240 of damage caused by grizzly bears to WS-Montana between 2021 and 2025. Approximately 27%
($696,459) of the grizzly bear damage reported to WS-Montana was verified. That means that roughly a quarter of the loss reported was verified.
Further clarification is needed regarding how the agency responds when loss is reported versus when it is verified to better understand the environmental impacts that the management plan has. If there is no procedure in place to respond differently depending on loss status, I urge the Agency to implement one. If the Agency is acting on merely reported loss, the Agency has not first verified that a grizzly bear caused the damage. Even more concerning, the Agency thus has not verified whether a particular individual grizzly bear is responsible for the loss. How can the Agency humanely punish or even kill a grizzly bear that has possibly not done anything wrong? I don't believe that it can. Additionally, in using non-lethal or lethal methods on a grizzly bear before loss is verified, the Agency might unfortunately waste its own resources if the bear in question isn't even responsible. In that scenario, the Agency is using its time and tools in a manner that does nothing to address the actual problem. Thus, there are both economic and environmental reasons for reasonably waiting to act until loss is verified.
I also ask that the agency clarify how it verifies loss when it performs only technical assistance rather than direct assistance. Based on the Agency's definition of technical assistance in the EIS, it seems as though this occurs in a remote capacity. In other words, the Agency is 5
providing assistance verbally over the phone but not physically. In doing so, how could the Agency verify that reported loss has been caused by a grizzly bear? Is the Agency's lack of verification for technical assistance the reason that only 27% of loss is verified? I believe that answers to these questions will allow for a more robust discussion and analysis of the environmental impacts of this plan.
3) Clarify what reasonable non-lethal methods are utilized before the use of lethal methods.
I next ask that the Agency clarify what non-lethal methods are used before the use of lethal methods. Is there a policy that guides the Agency on what reasonable non-lethal methods should be used prior to the use of lethal methods or is it entirely dependent on the specific situation at hand? As a reminder, the Agency "shall identify. . .methods and procedures which will ensure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making . . . ."6 Additionally, NEPA's aims are "(1) to place [] upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action[,] and (2) ensure [] that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process."7 The potential impacts of the plan on grizzly bears are essentially unknown if the Agency does not have a procedure in place, making this DEIS inadequate.
I sympathize with the fact that the agency has to make very quick determinations in possibly dangerous circumstances. However, I also feel that the implementation of a policy such as the one I suggest will best balance the interests of landowners with the environment. An entirely fact-dependent plan is not sufficient for appropriate consideration in decision-making.
There is no way to predict what the environmental impacts of this plan will be if the Agency 7 Wildearth Guardians v. Bucknall, 756 F. Supp. 3d 1017, 1029.
6 42 USCS Sec. 4332(B)
6
insists that it varies entirely case-by-case. Thus, if the Agency implements a strategy to utilize certain non-lethal methods in every scenario, the environmental impacts of this plan may be easier to understand and thus analyze.
In an attempt to minimize any burden that this may place on the Agency, I recommend that the following procedure be made into the Agency's policy. Technical assistance techniques should always be prioritized first. Even in situations where there may be a threat to physical safety, the Agency must utilize education as a method to deescalate the situation. The Agency describes education as more formal activities but they can also educate landowners on an individual basis in response to complaints.8
In making education more of a two-fold method, the
Agency can provide more tailored information to those being impacted which may lessen any environmental damage and curb safety concerns. The Agency should always recommend that landowners implement physical exclusion, animal husbandry, and habitat management.9 If the
Agency always relies on these methods first, there will be less interactions between humans and wildlife and there will also be less harm done to grizzly bears.
4) Analyze the practicality of implementing a management plan that utilizes only
non-lethal technical and direct assistance.
The DEIS does not sufficiently analyze the practicality of implementing a management plan that utilizes only non-lethal technical and direct assistance. Failure to reasonably consider and elaborate on the effectiveness of an alternative such as this could mean that this DEIS does not adhere to the NEPA requirements.10 The DEIS directly impacts a threatened species which is why I urge the Agency to revisit this alternative and provide more substance as to its possible effectiveness. In the DEIS, the Agency refuses to explore this alternative in detail, stating that it 10 42 USCS Sec. 4332(C)
9
Id.
8 Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix A.
7
would not be logical. I have to disagree with the Agency here. This alternative may require that the Agency get a bit creative in its use of non-lethal methods to sufficiently prevent damage loss but just because it may be difficult does not make it illogical or unworthy of consideration.
In Appendix A of the DEIS, the Agency makes clear which of its methods are non-lethal and which are lethal.11 There are some methods, such as foot snares and cable restraints, that may be lethal and non-lethal depending on how it is used. In asking the Agency to only use non-lethal methods, I am not suggesting that the Agency should completely abandon each of these methods that may serve a lethal or non-lethal purpose. However, I do ask that the Agency use those methods in only a non-lethal way under this alternative.
Analyzing the practicality of this alternative is critical due to the status of grizzly bear endangerment. It is well-established that the loss of even a few female grizzly bears in particularly vulnerable areas may have significant impacts on the local population of grizzly bears.12 The loss of female bears is troubling because grizzly bears are one of the slowest reproducing animals in North America, making it difficult to repopulate.13 Thus, a non-lethal management plan could have profound impacts on the species and the environment of Montana more broadly, making this a necessary analysis for NEPA compliance.14
In analyzing this potential alternative, the Agency needs to address what impact other agencies may have on the grizzly bear population. The Agency mentions throughout the DEIS that if they don't perform lethal methods, then other agencies will and may even do so in higher amounts. This is not sufficient information. The Agency is essentially ignoring their 14 42 USCS Sec. 4332(C)(i).
13 Id.
12 Wildearth Guardians v. Bucknall, 756 F. Supp. 3d 1017, 1034.
11 Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix A.
8
responsibility to analyze the environmental impacts of its plan by saying that other agencies may or may not kill more bears than APHIS would.
Absolute refusal to consider use of entirely non-lethal methods is a violation of NEPA's requirement that there be information for appropriate consideration in decision-making. By not expanding upon this reasonable alternative, the Agency is failing to analyze ways that it may reduce harmful environmental impacts through this plan.
5) Clarify the Agency's role in the killing of grizzly bears through technical assistance.
The Agency should clarify how many grizzly bears are killed via technical assistance and whether that number is currently included under Table 3.1. Between 2021 and 2025, WS-Montana conducted 13, 122 technical assistance projects.15 The Agency needs to clarify how many of these projects resulted in the death of a grizzly bear if it is not already included in the Agency's number of lethal takes in Table 3.1. This information is critical for analyzing whether the Agency should continue to conduct lethal methods through technical assistance. The continuation of lethal methods through technical assistance is a fairly large prong of the proposed action under the DEIS. Thus, to be in compliance with NEPA, the Agency must clarify whether their current number of lethal takes includes those takes that the Agency aided in via technical assistance.
6) Abolish lethal methods through technical assistance.
The Agency describes technical assistance as advice, information, education, and/or demonstrations. This form of assistance provided by the Agency is essentially when APHIS-WS recommends certain actions to whomever is reporting damage or a concern. In contrast, direct assistance is when the Agency is physically helping catch wildlife, removing animals from 15 Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Page 36.
9
property, etc. Under the DEIS, the Agency provides lethal technical assistance to reporters of damage and would continue to do so.
I urge the Agency to alter the DEIS so that it no longer provides lethal technical assistance. Landowners do not have the training or knowledge that the Agency does and should not be legally allowed to kill grizzly bears, a threatened species. Additionally, I raise concerns that in providing lethal technical assistance, any damage is not verified prior to the use of these methods. Under this DEIS, landowners could hypothetically receive lethal technical advice from the agency and then kill a grizzly bear without that bear having done any damage. In providing technical assistance, the Agency should aim to protect landowners and their property by making suggestions on how to better protect their property and themselves through non-lethal methods only. Allowing landowners to do the killing on their own cannot guarantee that the bear is killed in a humane way and again makes it much more difficult to predict what the environmental impacts of this DEIS will actually be.
7) Please address the varying degrees of harm that grizzly bears may face with the different lethal and non-lethal methods.
I greatly appreciate the Agency's inclusion of Appendix A in the DEIS. This part of the DEIS outlines the methods used by the Agency for technical and direct assistance, including both lethal and non-lethal methods. However, I urge that the Agency please include a brief statement for each of these methods on how that method may harm the grizzly bears. As a threatened species, I think it is crucial to consider the well-being of these individual bears particularly because there are so few. This information is necessary to provide appropriate consideration in decision-making and will illuminate whether these methods outweigh the harm they cause to grizzly bears.
10
8) Implement non-lethal methods that attract bears to their natural habitat rather than deterring bears from populated areas.
The drafters of the DEIS acknowledge that when grizzly bears enter human-populated areas it often has to do with a deficiency of their habitat, whether that be a lack of food or smaller habitat sizes due to human development.16 Despite this acknowledgement, DEIS does not reasonably consider implementing a preventative, upstream approach that would better support the habitat of grizzly bears and thus reduce their interactions with humans. The DEIS does contemplate conducting supplemental or diversionary feeding and ultimately strikes that down as an unreasonable alternative. However, the DEIS doesn't reasonably discuss other ways that the Agency could promote and protect the natural habitat that these bears live in.
If the Agency wishes to adhere to NEPA through this DEIS, I urge it to at least consider a way to better support the remaining habitat of grizzly bears in Montana. If habitat deficiencies are truly the cause of grizzly bear and human interactions then an effective habitat preservation or restoration plan could effectively reduce these interactions and the damage caused. This alternative would then prevent damage to landowners and would result in far less, possibly even zero, deaths of grizzly bears.
9) Implement an agency-wide goal of advancing animal well-being.
Throughout the DEIS, the Agency describes its goals. I applaud the Agency's current goals and believe that they should remain in place. However, I urge the Agency to also implement a new goal/objective to advance the well-being of Montana's wildlife. Including this goal does not mean that animal well-being in any way outweighs human interests but it will at least be a factor that the Agency must consider in its decision making. The Agency has 16 Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Page 3.
11
"wildlife" in the name, so perhaps it should aim to advance the interests of wildlife in relation to handling human interest.
The objectives of the Agency aim to not contribute harm to grizzly bears or other species.
This is a great goal and I agree that the Agency should make efforts to ensure that their actions do not negatively impact the grizzly bear population. However, I urge the Agency to go a step further and make it an objective to actually advance the interests of grizzly bears.
Final Thoughts
I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on APHIS' Grizzly Bear Damage and
Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Additionally, I appreciate all of the effort that went into creating this DEIS. However, I believe that there are numerous ways that this DEIS could be strengthened to promote a better relationship between humans and wildlife while also minimizing the possible harm to grizzly bears. I also believe that there are still some areas where the Agency must supply more information in order for the DEIS to be in compliance with NEPA. Thank you for considering my suggestions, I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Allyson Koop
Animal Counsel
12
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/APHIS-2025-0004-0147
29 September 2026
Dalin Tidwell
Montana Wildlife Services State Director
USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services
PO Box 1938
Billings, MT 59103
Re: Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
Docket (APHIS-2025-0004)
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"). My name ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. 29 September 2026 Dalin Tidwell Montana Wildlife Services State Director USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services PO Box 1938 Billings, MT 59103 Re: Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement Docket (APHIS-2025-0004) Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"). My nameis Allyson Koop, and I am writing as an Extern on behalf of Animal Counsel, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting animals and their habitats through law and policy. We seek to conserve wild populations while simultaneously promoting individual animal welfare.
I would first like to express gratitude to the Agency for its conservation efforts.
Throughout the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Montana Wildlife Services has demonstrated a commitment to balancing human interests with those of the environment. With that being said, there are some areas of the Environmental Impact Statement that could be improved or require further information. For the best possible Grizzly Bear Damage Management plan, I urge Wildlife Services to address all possible issues associated with its current plan.
The feedback provided is meant to ensure the Agency's compliance with applicable
federal laws. Under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Agency is required to include in its report detailed statements on all reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of 1
the proposed agency action.1 Additionally, the Agency "shall identify. . .methods and procedures which will ensure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making . . . ."2 To properly hold the Agency accountable under NEPA, I raise suggestions on reasonable changes and awareness on areas where the Agency may need to provide more information for appropriate consideration in decision-making.
Additionally, since this is a DEIS, I would like to remind the Agency that the final EIS it produces could be subject to judicial review. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court may "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."3 As my feedback highlights, there are areas of the DEIS that currently lack the clarity required under NEPA. Thus, I ask that the Agency take these suggestions seriously so that it can create the best Grizzly Bear Management Plan possible.
3 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(a).
2 42 USCS Sec. 4332(B)
1 42 USCS Sec. 4332(C)(i)
2
Summarized Asks and Comments for Montana-WS
1) Utilize an objective definition of "damage."
2) Clarify how a determination of loss as reported or verified impacts the agency's course of action.
3) Clarify what reasonable non-lethal methods are utilized before the use of lethal methods.
4) Analyze the practicality of implementing a management plan that utilizes only non-lethal technical and direct assistance.
5) Clarify the Agency's role in the killing of grizzly bears through technical assistance.
6) Abolish lethal methods through technical assistance.
7) Please address the varying degrees of harm that grizzly bears may face with the different lethal and non-lethal methods.
8) Implement non-lethal methods that attract bears to their natural habitat rather than deterring bears from populated areas.
9) Implement an agency-wide goal of advancing animal well-being.
3
1) Utilize an objective definition of "damage."
The most concerning part of the DEIS is how the Agency defines damage. The damage in question is the basis for any agency action so how it is defined is important to the implementation of the plan. Here is how the agency currently defines the term:
The term "damage" in the case of GBDM is consistently used to describe situations where the individual person or entity has determined that the losses caused by grizzly bears has triggered their threshold for requesting assistance or attempting to resolve the issue themselves. "Damage" may be defined as economic losses to property or assets, or threats to human or pet safety. The threshold triggering a request for assistance in dealing with a particular damage situation is often unique to the individual person, entity, or agency requesting assistance. Therefore, what constitutes damage to one person or entity and considered intolerable may not even be considered a problem by another individual or entity.
4
The Agency makes it clear itself that what constitutes damage is essentially up to the complainant. Such a subjective test for agency action is deeply concerning where the agency's action is possibly the death of a grizzly bear. Additionally, this subjective standard will have an irreversible environmental impact that is difficult to predict without a more objective standard.
This threshold for damage is going to result in more harm to the bears than an objective threshold because the complainants get to determine what the bears life is worth AND they are already upset about the bears activity (at least enough to report to WS-Montana). "Human tolerance, much more than habitat, genetics, or food resources, will determine where bears exist and at what density levels into the future."5 Without an objective definition of damage, there is nothing in place to protect this threatened species against the potential emotional whims of land owners.
5 Wildearth Guardians v. Bucknall, 756 F. Supp. 3d 1017, 1027.
4 Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement, p. 140 (emphasis added).
4
2) Clarify how a determination of damage as reported or verified impacts the agency's course of action.
To best analyze the DEIS, the Agency must clarify whether it takes different approaches to grizzly bear management when damage is simply reported versus when it has been verified by the Agency. Throughout the DEIS, the Agency references two categories of damage: verified and reported. According to the DEIS, Montana livestock producers reported $2,548,240 of damage caused by grizzly bears to WS-Montana between 2021 and 2025. Approximately 27%
($696,459) of the grizzly bear damage reported to WS-Montana was verified. That means that roughly a quarter of the loss reported was verified.
Further clarification is needed regarding how the agency responds when loss is reported versus when it is verified to better understand the environmental impacts that the management plan has. If there is no procedure in place to respond differently depending on loss status, I urge the Agency to implement one. If the Agency is acting on merely reported loss, the Agency has not first verified that a grizzly bear caused the damage. Even more concerning, the Agency thus has not verified whether a particular individual grizzly bear is responsible for the loss. How can the Agency humanely punish or even kill a grizzly bear that has possibly not done anything wrong? I don't believe that it can. Additionally, in using non-lethal or lethal methods on a grizzly bear before loss is verified, the Agency might unfortunately waste its own resources if the bear in question isn't even responsible. In that scenario, the Agency is using its time and tools in a manner that does nothing to address the actual problem. Thus, there are both economic and environmental reasons for reasonably waiting to act until loss is verified.
I also ask that the agency clarify how it verifies loss when it performs only technical assistance rather than direct assistance. Based on the Agency's definition of technical assistance in the EIS, it seems as though this occurs in a remote capacity. In other words, the Agency is 5
providing assistance verbally over the phone but not physically. In doing so, how could the Agency verify that reported loss has been caused by a grizzly bear? Is the Agency's lack of verification for technical assistance the reason that only 27% of loss is verified? I believe that answers to these questions will allow for a more robust discussion and analysis of the environmental impacts of this plan.
3) Clarify what reasonable non-lethal methods are utilized before the use of lethal methods.
I next ask that the Agency clarify what non-lethal methods are used before the use of lethal methods. Is there a policy that guides the Agency on what reasonable non-lethal methods should be used prior to the use of lethal methods or is it entirely dependent on the specific situation at hand? As a reminder, the Agency "shall identify. . .methods and procedures which will ensure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making . . . ."6 Additionally, NEPA's aims are "(1) to place [] upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action[,] and (2) ensure [] that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process."7 The potential impacts of the plan on grizzly bears are essentially unknown if the Agency does not have a procedure in place, making this DEIS inadequate.
I sympathize with the fact that the agency has to make very quick determinations in possibly dangerous circumstances. However, I also feel that the implementation of a policy such as the one I suggest will best balance the interests of landowners with the environment. An entirely fact-dependent plan is not sufficient for appropriate consideration in decision-making.
There is no way to predict what the environmental impacts of this plan will be if the Agency 7 Wildearth Guardians v. Bucknall, 756 F. Supp. 3d 1017, 1029.
6 42 USCS Sec. 4332(B)
6
insists that it varies entirely case-by-case. Thus, if the Agency implements a strategy to utilize certain non-lethal methods in every scenario, the environmental impacts of this plan may be easier to understand and thus analyze.
In an attempt to minimize any burden that this may place on the Agency, I recommend that the following procedure be made into the Agency's policy. Technical assistance techniques should always be prioritized first. Even in situations where there may be a threat to physical safety, the Agency must utilize education as a method to deescalate the situation. The Agency describes education as more formal activities but they can also educate landowners on an individual basis in response to complaints.8
In making education more of a two-fold method, the
Agency can provide more tailored information to those being impacted which may lessen any environmental damage and curb safety concerns. The Agency should always recommend that landowners implement physical exclusion, animal husbandry, and habitat management.9 If the
Agency always relies on these methods first, there will be less interactions between humans and wildlife and there will also be less harm done to grizzly bears.
4) Analyze the practicality of implementing a management plan that utilizes only
non-lethal technical and direct assistance.
The DEIS does not sufficiently analyze the practicality of implementing a management plan that utilizes only non-lethal technical and direct assistance. Failure to reasonably consider and elaborate on the effectiveness of an alternative such as this could mean that this DEIS does not adhere to the NEPA requirements.10 The DEIS directly impacts a threatened species which is why I urge the Agency to revisit this alternative and provide more substance as to its possible effectiveness. In the DEIS, the Agency refuses to explore this alternative in detail, stating that it 10 42 USCS Sec. 4332(C)
9
Id.
8 Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix A.
7
would not be logical. I have to disagree with the Agency here. This alternative may require that the Agency get a bit creative in its use of non-lethal methods to sufficiently prevent damage loss but just because it may be difficult does not make it illogical or unworthy of consideration.
In Appendix A of the DEIS, the Agency makes clear which of its methods are non-lethal and which are lethal.11 There are some methods, such as foot snares and cable restraints, that may be lethal and non-lethal depending on how it is used. In asking the Agency to only use non-lethal methods, I am not suggesting that the Agency should completely abandon each of these methods that may serve a lethal or non-lethal purpose. However, I do ask that the Agency use those methods in only a non-lethal way under this alternative.
Analyzing the practicality of this alternative is critical due to the status of grizzly bear endangerment. It is well-established that the loss of even a few female grizzly bears in particularly vulnerable areas may have significant impacts on the local population of grizzly bears.12 The loss of female bears is troubling because grizzly bears are one of the slowest reproducing animals in North America, making it difficult to repopulate.13 Thus, a non-lethal management plan could have profound impacts on the species and the environment of Montana more broadly, making this a necessary analysis for NEPA compliance.14
In analyzing this potential alternative, the Agency needs to address what impact other agencies may have on the grizzly bear population. The Agency mentions throughout the DEIS that if they don't perform lethal methods, then other agencies will and may even do so in higher amounts. This is not sufficient information. The Agency is essentially ignoring their 14 42 USCS Sec. 4332(C)(i).
13 Id.
12 Wildearth Guardians v. Bucknall, 756 F. Supp. 3d 1017, 1034.
11 Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix A.
8
responsibility to analyze the environmental impacts of its plan by saying that other agencies may or may not kill more bears than APHIS would.
Absolute refusal to consider use of entirely non-lethal methods is a violation of NEPA's requirement that there be information for appropriate consideration in decision-making. By not expanding upon this reasonable alternative, the Agency is failing to analyze ways that it may reduce harmful environmental impacts through this plan.
5) Clarify the Agency's role in the killing of grizzly bears through technical assistance.
The Agency should clarify how many grizzly bears are killed via technical assistance and whether that number is currently included under Table 3.1. Between 2021 and 2025, WS-Montana conducted 13, 122 technical assistance projects.15 The Agency needs to clarify how many of these projects resulted in the death of a grizzly bear if it is not already included in the Agency's number of lethal takes in Table 3.1. This information is critical for analyzing whether the Agency should continue to conduct lethal methods through technical assistance. The continuation of lethal methods through technical assistance is a fairly large prong of the proposed action under the DEIS. Thus, to be in compliance with NEPA, the Agency must clarify whether their current number of lethal takes includes those takes that the Agency aided in via technical assistance.
6) Abolish lethal methods through technical assistance.
The Agency describes technical assistance as advice, information, education, and/or demonstrations. This form of assistance provided by the Agency is essentially when APHIS-WS recommends certain actions to whomever is reporting damage or a concern. In contrast, direct assistance is when the Agency is physically helping catch wildlife, removing animals from 15 Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Page 36.
9
property, etc. Under the DEIS, the Agency provides lethal technical assistance to reporters of damage and would continue to do so.
I urge the Agency to alter the DEIS so that it no longer provides lethal technical assistance. Landowners do not have the training or knowledge that the Agency does and should not be legally allowed to kill grizzly bears, a threatened species. Additionally, I raise concerns that in providing lethal technical assistance, any damage is not verified prior to the use of these methods. Under this DEIS, landowners could hypothetically receive lethal technical advice from the agency and then kill a grizzly bear without that bear having done any damage. In providing technical assistance, the Agency should aim to protect landowners and their property by making suggestions on how to better protect their property and themselves through non-lethal methods only. Allowing landowners to do the killing on their own cannot guarantee that the bear is killed in a humane way and again makes it much more difficult to predict what the environmental impacts of this DEIS will actually be.
7) Please address the varying degrees of harm that grizzly bears may face with the different lethal and non-lethal methods.
I greatly appreciate the Agency's inclusion of Appendix A in the DEIS. This part of the DEIS outlines the methods used by the Agency for technical and direct assistance, including both lethal and non-lethal methods. However, I urge that the Agency please include a brief statement for each of these methods on how that method may harm the grizzly bears. As a threatened species, I think it is crucial to consider the well-being of these individual bears particularly because there are so few. This information is necessary to provide appropriate consideration in decision-making and will illuminate whether these methods outweigh the harm they cause to grizzly bears.
10
8) Implement non-lethal methods that attract bears to their natural habitat rather than deterring bears from populated areas.
The drafters of the DEIS acknowledge that when grizzly bears enter human-populated areas it often has to do with a deficiency of their habitat, whether that be a lack of food or smaller habitat sizes due to human development.16 Despite this acknowledgement, DEIS does not reasonably consider implementing a preventative, upstream approach that would better support the habitat of grizzly bears and thus reduce their interactions with humans. The DEIS does contemplate conducting supplemental or diversionary feeding and ultimately strikes that down as an unreasonable alternative. However, the DEIS doesn't reasonably discuss other ways that the Agency could promote and protect the natural habitat that these bears live in.
If the Agency wishes to adhere to NEPA through this DEIS, I urge it to at least consider a way to better support the remaining habitat of grizzly bears in Montana. If habitat deficiencies are truly the cause of grizzly bear and human interactions then an effective habitat preservation or restoration plan could effectively reduce these interactions and the damage caused. This alternative would then prevent damage to landowners and would result in far less, possibly even zero, deaths of grizzly bears.
9) Implement an agency-wide goal of advancing animal well-being.
Throughout the DEIS, the Agency describes its goals. I applaud the Agency's current goals and believe that they should remain in place. However, I urge the Agency to also implement a new goal/objective to advance the well-being of Montana's wildlife. Including this goal does not mean that animal well-being in any way outweighs human interests but it will at least be a factor that the Agency must consider in its decision making. The Agency has 16 Grizzly Bear Damage and Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Page 3.
11
"wildlife" in the name, so perhaps it should aim to advance the interests of wildlife in relation to handling human interest.
The objectives of the Agency aim to not contribute harm to grizzly bears or other species.
This is a great goal and I agree that the Agency should make efforts to ensure that their actions do not negatively impact the grizzly bear population. However, I urge the Agency to go a step further and make it an objective to actually advance the interests of grizzly bears.
Final Thoughts
I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on APHIS' Grizzly Bear Damage and
Conflict Management in Montana Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Additionally, I appreciate all of the effort that went into creating this DEIS. However, I believe that there are numerous ways that this DEIS could be strengthened to promote a better relationship between humans and wildlife while also minimizing the possible harm to grizzly bears. I also believe that there are still some areas where the Agency must supply more information in order for the DEIS to be in compliance with NEPA. Thank you for considering my suggestions, I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Allyson Koop
Animal Counsel
12
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/APHIS-2025-0004-0147
Appalachian Mountain Club Urges Preservation of Roadless Area Conservation Rule to Protect Ecosystems and Recreation
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
September 29, 2026
Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination
201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108,
Washington, DC 20250-1124
Re: Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
RIN 0596-AD66 / Docket No. FS-2025-0001
Director -
These comments on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule) (66 FR 3244, 36 CFR Subpart ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. September 29, 2026 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108, Washington, DC 20250-1124 Re: Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule RIN 0596-AD66 / Docket No. FS-2025-0001 Director - These comments on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule) (66 FR 3244, 36 CFR SubpartB (2001), are submitted by the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC). We understand that the agency is proposing to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and return decisions regarding road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) to local forest planning and project-level processes. The proposal affects approximately 44.7 million acres of National Forest System land currently covered by the Roadless Rule. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement evaluates whether a national prohibition on roads and timber harvest remains necessary or whether roadless area management should instead be handled through forest plans, NEPA review, and local decision-making.
The AMC is the oldest conservation and recreation organization in the country, with close to 90,000 members from Maine to Virginia. As a partner of the U.S. Forest Service, we have an interest in protecting and enhancing both the recreation and conservation values of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) in NH as well as other national forests in the Appalachian region including the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania and George Washington & Jefferson National Forest in Virginia. The AMC is a long-standing trail-maintaining partner of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) and manages more than 300 miles of the Appalachian Trail across five states, including approximately 120 miles in New Hampshire. Through its professional trail crews, volunteers, and conservation staff, the AMC works alongside the ATC, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and other partners to steward, protect, and enhance one of the nation's most iconic recreation and conservation corridors. The AMC has been engaged in the development of rules governing management of roadless areas on national forests since the submission of our first comments in 1998 through 2004. The AMC was an active participant in the development of the 2005 Land and Resource Management Plan for the White Mountain National Forest and has supported the Plan since its adoption. The AMC also has practical experience in actively managing 130,000 acres of our own forested lands in northern Maine aimed at restoring late-successional conditions through a combination of reserves and conservative timber management.
Though we are focused primarily on the northeast, we put a high priority on maintaining both the ecological integrity and the backcountry recreational opportunities of the entire National Forest system. The AMC believes that maintaining and restoring the health and integrity of ecosystems should be the primary goal of National Forest management. Within the constraints of this overriding principle, we continue to support the management of National Forests under the multiple use concept, and support Forest Service efforts to maintain the existing range of uses on these forests. However, we strongly believe that roadless areas, managed to maintain natural forest composition and structure, are an increasingly rare component of our national landscape, and that they possess ecological, economic, recreational, social, and spiritual values that should be maintained or restored as a national asset. The roadless protections that currently live in one national rule prevent fragmentation that may arise through individual forest plans, each changeable, each on a separate review and revision cycle, and each subject to management in place at the time. That fragmentation allows short-term interests to influence local decisions at the expense of broad, consistent conservation policy that benefits both forest health and local communities.
Population growth and demand for resources have put unprecedented pressure on the nation's and the globe's ecosystems. Each generation uses more of the world's biological resources, leaving less to sustain biological systems and the species that inhabit them. As a result, each generation is leaving its descendants a world that is more biologically impoverished than the one it inherited. Our challenge and responsibility is to pass along a sustainable environment, with biological richness for the future. As the nation's pre-eminent public land management agency, the Forest Service has a responsibility not only to current users of National Forest lands, but to all future generations. The great majority of lands outside the National Forest system are increasingly being altered to meet human needs. The remaining roadless areas on the National Forest system represent our single best opportunity to maintain large areas in a natural condition and conserve the full range of biodiversity that they contain.
Large roadless areas offer us what roaded managed forests cannot - they harbor contiguous, high-quality habitat where a diverse array of wildlife can flourish. They are havens for old growth and all the species that require or thrive in it and are reservoirs for genetic diversity. They are scientific laboratories that give us tomorrow's medicines and benchmarks for comparison with managed working forests. They are vital for maintaining clean drinking water for communities across the country. Managing these lands to ensure these unique ecological values and attributes are maintained in perpetuity should be the Forest Service's highest priority.
The DEIS emphasizes that wildfire and other risks have increased over the past 25 years. Yet the data shows that more roads will result in more fire ignitions, not less. According to the U.S. Forest Service 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. New peer-reviewed research found that, due to the presence of people, fires are four times more likely to start near a road than in roadless forests. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It increases the likelihood of human-caused ignitions and stretches already limited firefighting capacity even further. The U.S. Forest Service https://smokeybear.com/ Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P., & Dietz, M.S. (2026). Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. Fire Ecology, 22, Article 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Streep, A. (2025, July 22). The Forest Service Claims It's Fully Staffed for a Worsening Fire Season. Data Shows Thousands of Unfilled Jobs. ProPublica. View article. [The Forest...ProPublica]
Service workforce has already been reduced by 15%, and many of these staff played a role in wildfire mitigation and response. Rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule exacerbates the problem by increasing the likelihood of human-caused ignitions, stretching limited firefighting capacity even further. To be clear, the existing 2001 Roadless Rule already permits hazardous fuels reduction and other measures needed for public safety- it only bars new road construction and large-scale logging. According to the Forest Service's own research, 34% of all fuel treatment activities between 2001-2019 occurred in roadless areas. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule also protects an important foundation of New Hampshire's outdoor recreation economy: the intact forests, remote backcountry, clean water, wildlife habitat, and scenic landscapes that draw residents and visitors to the White Mountains. Approximately 235,000 acres of the White Mountain National Forest are covered by the Rule, helping sustain recreation opportunities in a forest that receives roughly six million visits each year. These protected settings support spending at outfitters, lodging properties, restaurants, guide services, retailers, and other small businesses throughout the North Country and beyond. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that outdoor recreation contributed $4.2 billion to New Hampshire's economy in 2024 - 3.5 percent of state GDP - and supported more than 33,000 jobs. Although those statewide figures cannot be attributed to the Roadless Rule alone, maintaining durable protections for the natural assets that underpin hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, paddling, skiing, and related tourism is a prudent investment in the long-term competitiveness and resilience of New Hampshire's recreation economy. AMC also recognizes the economic and social benefits of continued public lands timber management, including: 1) local provision of an important renewable resource, supporting local mills and reducing the need to import timber from more distant areas; 2) providing opportunities to local contractors for employment and learning; 3) management for larger diameter high-quality sawlogs; and 4) the educational value of demonstrating ecologically focused timber management. However, the administration's proposal to open currently protected public lands to increased logging and mining - and remove environmental safeguards that constrain resource extraction - is shortsighted and ill-advised.
Expanding access to roadless areas would also do little to advance timber production because the Forest Service already lacks the capacity to meet its current harvest targets. Making more timber available while reducing the agency's ability to administer timber sales is contradictory. The Forest Service already faces an estimated backlog of more than $6 billion in road and transportation maintenance across the National Forest System, making the construction of additional permanent roads as a result of the proposed rule rescission a significant long-term fiscal and management burden.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General. (2025, December 17). USDA Staffing Levels (Report No. 25-064-01). https://www.oversight.gov/report/usda/usda-staffing-levels. Healey, S.P. (2020). Long-term forest health implications of roadlessness. Environmental Research Letters, 15(10), 104023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba031.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Outdoor Recreation Economic Statistics, U.S. and States, 2024, state tables for value added, share of current-dollar gross domestic product, and employment (New Hampshire), released March 5, 2026. U.S. Forest Service. Maintaining Infrastructure. National Asset Management Program. The agency reports an overall deferred maintenance backlog exceeding $8.6 billion, with transportation infrastructure representing a substantial portion of that total https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/infrastructure/maintaining.
With that in mind, the AMC strongly supports maintaining the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as originally adopted. Specifically, we support the current rule because it:
Guarantees long-term protection for all inventoried roadless areas;
Guides the process for protecting uninventoried roadless areas;
Reflects the comments of over 1.6 million Americans who overwhelmingly support protecting our remaining roadless areas. Those stakeholders include the outdoor recreation industry, recreationists, hunters and anglers, scientists, conservationists, economists, state fish and game agencies, and elected officials.
We oppose any changes that would weaken the protection provided to roadless areas through a proposed recission of the existing rule. We recognize the effort to produce the DEIS on the proposed rule, including the three alternatives of No Action, Full Rescission, and Partial Modification in achieving a balanced approach to public lands management and its multiple uses. However, the current public comment period remains woefully short for what amounts to a substantial directional change in policy, preventing full public comment and stakeholder engagement. The original 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was developed through approximately 129 days of public comment and more than 400 public meetings nationwide, while the current proposal to rescind the rule provides only a 45-day comment period even after extension, representing an inadequate opportunity for public participation.
Management of National Forests rests on a three-legged stool - congressional legislation (e.g. NFMA, ESA, CWA, etc.), national agency rulemaking, and individual forest plans. (The term "local" is misleading, as there is no good definition for it. As far as the White Mountain National Forest is concerned, all of New Hampshire and parts of Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine should be considered local, as the forest is readily accessible for day use from these states and the presence of the WMNF creates benefits for all of New England.) Congressional legislation and national agency rulemaking are the appropriate tools to address issues of national significance for which consistent policy is desirable. Given the ever-expanding impact of human activities on our national landscape, and the ever-shrinking extent of areas maintained in a natural condition, the protection of remaining roadless areas clearly qualifies as an issue of national significance, and it is appropriate that nationally consistent rules have been established for this purpose.
Individual forest planning has a role to play in the management of these areas, but this process must not be allowed to undermine or weaken the fundamental intent of the rule. Forest plans should not be used as a mechanism to determine whether roadless areas deserve protection, any more than they would be allowed to determine whether endangered species or clean water should be protected.
Our comments also address several additional areas pertaining to the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) including:
23,000 acres of the WMNF are in both an IRA (Inventoried Roadless Area) and MA 2.1 per the WMNF Plan where timber management is already allowed. The WMNF's current timber program is operating well below the level contemplated in its Forest Plan. While the 2005 Forest Plan established an Allowable Sale Quantity of approximately 24 million board feet annually, the Forest Service reports that the WMNF typically sells only 10 to 12 million board feet per year, or roughly one-half of the planned capacity. If the Forest Service increased its harvest volume, it's likely that regional markets wouldn't have the capacity (loggers, sawmills) to accommodate without sending to Canadian markets for processing.
Timber management on the WMNF aims towards developing and maintaining mature forest conditions, though some areas of younger forest are created for wildlife or silvicultural purposes. These forest type distinctions are critical, as some types - such as the northern hardwoods and spruce-fir on the WMNF - are very amenable to active management for restoration and maintenance as "managed late-successional" and old forest conditions. Other forest types may require some level of active management to restore resilient conditions, and some may best achieve old forest status by being left alone.
Sustainably harvested wood products from the WMNF supply needed products to the region and contribute to the local forest economy's contractors and mills. The AMC has experience with forest management and timber harvesting on our ownership in Northern Maine and recognizes the value of wood products as a renewable resource and economic driver in rural northern New England.
The AMC believes any rule modification should allow for the continuation of the current level of harvesting on the WMNF, while maintaining or enhancing the focus on managing for mature forest conditions. The WMNF is one of the land managers practicing the type of ecological forestry that the AMC would like to see more widely adopted.
Current forest management of the WMNF provides regional ecological benefits by increasing carbon storage through conservative timber management while retaining large sections of the forest as natural areas. The AMC believes this directive should allow for the balance to be maintained in future management.
The AMC recognizes that ecological restoration and old-forest management will often conflict with economically efficient timber production. In its approach to this tension, the U.S. Forest Service should prioritize ecological restoration and mature forest conditions to provide broad public benefits.
In closing, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) strongly supports the protection of roadless areas in the National Forest system. We urge the Forest Service to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as written and support the No Action alternative in the DEIS. We oppose any changes that would weaken the protection provided to roadless areas under the proposed rule. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
Mandy Warner
Senior Director of Policy
Appalachian Mountain Club
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FS-2025-0001-513198
September 29, 2026
Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination
201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108,
Washington, DC 20250-1124
Re: Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
RIN 0596-AD66 / Docket No. FS-2025-0001
Director -
These comments on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule) (66 FR 3244, 36 CFR Subpart ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. September 29, 2026 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108, Washington, DC 20250-1124 Re: Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule RIN 0596-AD66 / Docket No. FS-2025-0001 Director - These comments on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule) (66 FR 3244, 36 CFR SubpartB (2001), are submitted by the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC). We understand that the agency is proposing to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and return decisions regarding road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) to local forest planning and project-level processes. The proposal affects approximately 44.7 million acres of National Forest System land currently covered by the Roadless Rule. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement evaluates whether a national prohibition on roads and timber harvest remains necessary or whether roadless area management should instead be handled through forest plans, NEPA review, and local decision-making.
The AMC is the oldest conservation and recreation organization in the country, with close to 90,000 members from Maine to Virginia. As a partner of the U.S. Forest Service, we have an interest in protecting and enhancing both the recreation and conservation values of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) in NH as well as other national forests in the Appalachian region including the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania and George Washington & Jefferson National Forest in Virginia. The AMC is a long-standing trail-maintaining partner of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) and manages more than 300 miles of the Appalachian Trail across five states, including approximately 120 miles in New Hampshire. Through its professional trail crews, volunteers, and conservation staff, the AMC works alongside the ATC, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and other partners to steward, protect, and enhance one of the nation's most iconic recreation and conservation corridors. The AMC has been engaged in the development of rules governing management of roadless areas on national forests since the submission of our first comments in 1998 through 2004. The AMC was an active participant in the development of the 2005 Land and Resource Management Plan for the White Mountain National Forest and has supported the Plan since its adoption. The AMC also has practical experience in actively managing 130,000 acres of our own forested lands in northern Maine aimed at restoring late-successional conditions through a combination of reserves and conservative timber management.
Though we are focused primarily on the northeast, we put a high priority on maintaining both the ecological integrity and the backcountry recreational opportunities of the entire National Forest system. The AMC believes that maintaining and restoring the health and integrity of ecosystems should be the primary goal of National Forest management. Within the constraints of this overriding principle, we continue to support the management of National Forests under the multiple use concept, and support Forest Service efforts to maintain the existing range of uses on these forests. However, we strongly believe that roadless areas, managed to maintain natural forest composition and structure, are an increasingly rare component of our national landscape, and that they possess ecological, economic, recreational, social, and spiritual values that should be maintained or restored as a national asset. The roadless protections that currently live in one national rule prevent fragmentation that may arise through individual forest plans, each changeable, each on a separate review and revision cycle, and each subject to management in place at the time. That fragmentation allows short-term interests to influence local decisions at the expense of broad, consistent conservation policy that benefits both forest health and local communities.
Population growth and demand for resources have put unprecedented pressure on the nation's and the globe's ecosystems. Each generation uses more of the world's biological resources, leaving less to sustain biological systems and the species that inhabit them. As a result, each generation is leaving its descendants a world that is more biologically impoverished than the one it inherited. Our challenge and responsibility is to pass along a sustainable environment, with biological richness for the future. As the nation's pre-eminent public land management agency, the Forest Service has a responsibility not only to current users of National Forest lands, but to all future generations. The great majority of lands outside the National Forest system are increasingly being altered to meet human needs. The remaining roadless areas on the National Forest system represent our single best opportunity to maintain large areas in a natural condition and conserve the full range of biodiversity that they contain.
Large roadless areas offer us what roaded managed forests cannot - they harbor contiguous, high-quality habitat where a diverse array of wildlife can flourish. They are havens for old growth and all the species that require or thrive in it and are reservoirs for genetic diversity. They are scientific laboratories that give us tomorrow's medicines and benchmarks for comparison with managed working forests. They are vital for maintaining clean drinking water for communities across the country. Managing these lands to ensure these unique ecological values and attributes are maintained in perpetuity should be the Forest Service's highest priority.
The DEIS emphasizes that wildfire and other risks have increased over the past 25 years. Yet the data shows that more roads will result in more fire ignitions, not less. According to the U.S. Forest Service 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. New peer-reviewed research found that, due to the presence of people, fires are four times more likely to start near a road than in roadless forests. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It increases the likelihood of human-caused ignitions and stretches already limited firefighting capacity even further. The U.S. Forest Service https://smokeybear.com/ Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P., & Dietz, M.S. (2026). Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. Fire Ecology, 22, Article 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Streep, A. (2025, July 22). The Forest Service Claims It's Fully Staffed for a Worsening Fire Season. Data Shows Thousands of Unfilled Jobs. ProPublica. View article. [The Forest...ProPublica]
Service workforce has already been reduced by 15%, and many of these staff played a role in wildfire mitigation and response. Rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule exacerbates the problem by increasing the likelihood of human-caused ignitions, stretching limited firefighting capacity even further. To be clear, the existing 2001 Roadless Rule already permits hazardous fuels reduction and other measures needed for public safety- it only bars new road construction and large-scale logging. According to the Forest Service's own research, 34% of all fuel treatment activities between 2001-2019 occurred in roadless areas. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule also protects an important foundation of New Hampshire's outdoor recreation economy: the intact forests, remote backcountry, clean water, wildlife habitat, and scenic landscapes that draw residents and visitors to the White Mountains. Approximately 235,000 acres of the White Mountain National Forest are covered by the Rule, helping sustain recreation opportunities in a forest that receives roughly six million visits each year. These protected settings support spending at outfitters, lodging properties, restaurants, guide services, retailers, and other small businesses throughout the North Country and beyond. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that outdoor recreation contributed $4.2 billion to New Hampshire's economy in 2024 - 3.5 percent of state GDP - and supported more than 33,000 jobs. Although those statewide figures cannot be attributed to the Roadless Rule alone, maintaining durable protections for the natural assets that underpin hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, paddling, skiing, and related tourism is a prudent investment in the long-term competitiveness and resilience of New Hampshire's recreation economy. AMC also recognizes the economic and social benefits of continued public lands timber management, including: 1) local provision of an important renewable resource, supporting local mills and reducing the need to import timber from more distant areas; 2) providing opportunities to local contractors for employment and learning; 3) management for larger diameter high-quality sawlogs; and 4) the educational value of demonstrating ecologically focused timber management. However, the administration's proposal to open currently protected public lands to increased logging and mining - and remove environmental safeguards that constrain resource extraction - is shortsighted and ill-advised.
Expanding access to roadless areas would also do little to advance timber production because the Forest Service already lacks the capacity to meet its current harvest targets. Making more timber available while reducing the agency's ability to administer timber sales is contradictory. The Forest Service already faces an estimated backlog of more than $6 billion in road and transportation maintenance across the National Forest System, making the construction of additional permanent roads as a result of the proposed rule rescission a significant long-term fiscal and management burden.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General. (2025, December 17). USDA Staffing Levels (Report No. 25-064-01). https://www.oversight.gov/report/usda/usda-staffing-levels. Healey, S.P. (2020). Long-term forest health implications of roadlessness. Environmental Research Letters, 15(10), 104023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba031.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Outdoor Recreation Economic Statistics, U.S. and States, 2024, state tables for value added, share of current-dollar gross domestic product, and employment (New Hampshire), released March 5, 2026. U.S. Forest Service. Maintaining Infrastructure. National Asset Management Program. The agency reports an overall deferred maintenance backlog exceeding $8.6 billion, with transportation infrastructure representing a substantial portion of that total https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/infrastructure/maintaining.
With that in mind, the AMC strongly supports maintaining the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as originally adopted. Specifically, we support the current rule because it:
Guarantees long-term protection for all inventoried roadless areas;
Guides the process for protecting uninventoried roadless areas;
Reflects the comments of over 1.6 million Americans who overwhelmingly support protecting our remaining roadless areas. Those stakeholders include the outdoor recreation industry, recreationists, hunters and anglers, scientists, conservationists, economists, state fish and game agencies, and elected officials.
We oppose any changes that would weaken the protection provided to roadless areas through a proposed recission of the existing rule. We recognize the effort to produce the DEIS on the proposed rule, including the three alternatives of No Action, Full Rescission, and Partial Modification in achieving a balanced approach to public lands management and its multiple uses. However, the current public comment period remains woefully short for what amounts to a substantial directional change in policy, preventing full public comment and stakeholder engagement. The original 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was developed through approximately 129 days of public comment and more than 400 public meetings nationwide, while the current proposal to rescind the rule provides only a 45-day comment period even after extension, representing an inadequate opportunity for public participation.
Management of National Forests rests on a three-legged stool - congressional legislation (e.g. NFMA, ESA, CWA, etc.), national agency rulemaking, and individual forest plans. (The term "local" is misleading, as there is no good definition for it. As far as the White Mountain National Forest is concerned, all of New Hampshire and parts of Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine should be considered local, as the forest is readily accessible for day use from these states and the presence of the WMNF creates benefits for all of New England.) Congressional legislation and national agency rulemaking are the appropriate tools to address issues of national significance for which consistent policy is desirable. Given the ever-expanding impact of human activities on our national landscape, and the ever-shrinking extent of areas maintained in a natural condition, the protection of remaining roadless areas clearly qualifies as an issue of national significance, and it is appropriate that nationally consistent rules have been established for this purpose.
Individual forest planning has a role to play in the management of these areas, but this process must not be allowed to undermine or weaken the fundamental intent of the rule. Forest plans should not be used as a mechanism to determine whether roadless areas deserve protection, any more than they would be allowed to determine whether endangered species or clean water should be protected.
Our comments also address several additional areas pertaining to the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) including:
23,000 acres of the WMNF are in both an IRA (Inventoried Roadless Area) and MA 2.1 per the WMNF Plan where timber management is already allowed. The WMNF's current timber program is operating well below the level contemplated in its Forest Plan. While the 2005 Forest Plan established an Allowable Sale Quantity of approximately 24 million board feet annually, the Forest Service reports that the WMNF typically sells only 10 to 12 million board feet per year, or roughly one-half of the planned capacity. If the Forest Service increased its harvest volume, it's likely that regional markets wouldn't have the capacity (loggers, sawmills) to accommodate without sending to Canadian markets for processing.
Timber management on the WMNF aims towards developing and maintaining mature forest conditions, though some areas of younger forest are created for wildlife or silvicultural purposes. These forest type distinctions are critical, as some types - such as the northern hardwoods and spruce-fir on the WMNF - are very amenable to active management for restoration and maintenance as "managed late-successional" and old forest conditions. Other forest types may require some level of active management to restore resilient conditions, and some may best achieve old forest status by being left alone.
Sustainably harvested wood products from the WMNF supply needed products to the region and contribute to the local forest economy's contractors and mills. The AMC has experience with forest management and timber harvesting on our ownership in Northern Maine and recognizes the value of wood products as a renewable resource and economic driver in rural northern New England.
The AMC believes any rule modification should allow for the continuation of the current level of harvesting on the WMNF, while maintaining or enhancing the focus on managing for mature forest conditions. The WMNF is one of the land managers practicing the type of ecological forestry that the AMC would like to see more widely adopted.
Current forest management of the WMNF provides regional ecological benefits by increasing carbon storage through conservative timber management while retaining large sections of the forest as natural areas. The AMC believes this directive should allow for the balance to be maintained in future management.
The AMC recognizes that ecological restoration and old-forest management will often conflict with economically efficient timber production. In its approach to this tension, the U.S. Forest Service should prioritize ecological restoration and mature forest conditions to provide broad public benefits.
In closing, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) strongly supports the protection of roadless areas in the National Forest system. We urge the Forest Service to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as written and support the No Action alternative in the DEIS. We oppose any changes that would weaken the protection provided to roadless areas under the proposed rule. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
Mandy Warner
Senior Director of Policy
Appalachian Mountain Club
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FS-2025-0001-513198
Amgen Urges CMS to Limit Confidentiality of Manufacturer Effectuation Plans and Enforce Good Faith Inquiry Before Disputes
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
Greg Portner
Senior Vice President
Global Government Affairs & Policy
601 Thirteenth Street, NW
Suite 1100 North
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202.585.9649
Email: gportner@amgen.com
www.amgen.com
September 22, 2026
William N. Parham, III
Director
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs
Division of Regulations Development
Attention: OMB Control ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. Greg Portner Senior Vice President Global Government Affairs & Policy 601 Thirteenth Street, NW Suite 1100 North Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202.585.9649 Email: gportner@amgen.com www.amgen.com September 22, 2026 William N. Parham, III Director Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs Division of Regulations Development Attention: OMB ControlNumber 0938-1483, CMS-10912
Re: Information Collection Request: Medicare Transaction Facilitator for 2028 under Sections 11001 and 11002 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (CMS-10912)
Dear Director Parham:
Amgen Inc. (Amgen) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Medicare Transaction Facilitator for 2028 under Sections 11001 and 11002 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which CMS released on July 24, 2026.
Amgen is committed to using science and innovation to dramatically improve people's lives, improving access to drugs and biologics (collectively, "drugs," consistent with CMS's convention), and promoting high-quality care for patients. Amgen develops innovative medicines as well as biosimilar biological products. Thus, our interest is to ensure a robust market for, and improve patient access in the United States to, both innovative and biosimilar biological products.
Amgen remains deeply concerned that government price controls implemented under the guise of a fair "negotiation" under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) are stymieing biopharmaceutical innovation at precisely the time when the world needs more new medicines to treat an aging population. Though we also continue to believe the IRA is unlawful, we submit these comments on certain aspects of the ICR for IPAY 2028 as part of our ongoing commitment to patients and in an effort to bring to CMS's attention the myriad problems the IRA contains and creates.
1 91 Fed. Reg. 46,786 (July 24, 2026).
September 22, 2026
Comments on OMB Control Number 0938-1483, CMS-10912
Page 2 of 3
Biopharmaceutical innovation is key to improving public health and people's lives. We encourage CMS to consider the impact on innovation as well as the impact on biosimilar development and patient access as it develops policy for this and other IRA-related programs.
Below, Amgen provides comments on Appendix B (the "Primary Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plan Form") and Appendix D (the "Complaint and Dispute Intake Form") of the ICR. To protect confidential manufacturer information, Amgen urges CMS to limit any release of Segment 1 of Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plans to dispensing entities and Part B providers. Additionally, Amgen recommends CMS require dispensers and providers to use and complete the Good Faith Inquiry (GFI), or a similar process available through an alternative MFP effectuation platform, before proceeding with a complaint or dispute.
Amgen strongly supports the comments of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) on this ICR.
I. CMS SHOULD LIMIT ACCESS TO SEGMENT 1 OF MANUFACTURER EFFECTUATION PLANS TO ONLY DISPENSERS AND PART B PROVIDERS (APPENDIX B PRIMARY MANUFACTURER MFP EFFECTUATION PLAN FORM)
CMS is proposing the content included in Segment 1 of Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plan be made available to dispensing entities, Part B providers, and, possibly, other stakeholders upon request without redactions; and the content in Segment 2 of the Form be withheld from public release and retained for internal government use only.
2 With respect to Segment 1, Amgen appreciates that CMS is taking steps to make information available to dispensers and providers on manufacturers' anticipated approaches to calculating MFP refund amounts through Section 4 of Segment 1 of Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plans. However, we do not support CMS making this information available to other stakeholders upon request, with or without redactions.
Amgen remains concerned that Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plans may contain proprietary and otherwise confidential business information, and that additional safeguards are needed to protect manufacturer-submitted information. Under the statute, CMS is obligated to keep manufacturer-submitted information confidential for use only by CMS and the Comptroller General.
3 Therefore, to balance the need for operational transparency with the need to protect manufacturers' confidential information, CMS should: (1) expressly limit any disclosure of Segment 1 of Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plans to dispensing entities and Part B providers, (2) maintain the proposed approach of not disclosing Segment 2 Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plans information publicly, and (3) work cooperatively with the manufacturers to redact any confidential information before any disclosure.
3 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Appendix B: Drug Price Negotiation Program MTF DM Primary Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plan Form, OMB Control No. 0938-1483, available at: https://www.cms.gov/files/zip/cms-10912.zip.
September 22, 2026
Comments on OMB Control Number 0938-1483, CMS-10912
Page 3 of 3
II. CMS SHOULD REQUIRE GOOD FAITH INQUIRY (GFI) RESOLUTION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A COMPLAINT OR DISPUTE (APPENDIX D COMPLAINT AND DISPUTE INTAKE FORM)
CMS's current and proposed effectuation guidance encourages dispensing entities and/or Part B providers and Primary Manufacturers to work together in good faith to resolve any issues regarding MFP before submitting a complaint to CMS.4
CMS should modify Question 3M in Appendix D to clarify that dispensers and providers must first initiate and complete a Good Faith Inquiry (GFI), or a similar process available through an alternative MFP effectuation platform.
5 CMS should decline to proceed with a complaint or dispute unless the dispenser or provider reports in response to Question 3M that the GFI has been completed, including that it was resolved within the time frame specified by the effectuation platform.
This clarification would reduce unnecessary burden on CMS by avoiding concurrent GFI and complaint or dispute processes. It also would allow dispensers and providers whose inquiry is resolved to their satisfaction to avoid initiating a separate complaint or dispute with CMS.
We appreciate CMS's consideration of these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact Yola Gawlik at (202) 320-1159 or ygawlik@amgen.com if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Greg Portner
Senior Vice President
Global Government Affairs & Policy
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CMS-2026-2608-0011
Greg Portner
Senior Vice President
Global Government Affairs & Policy
601 Thirteenth Street, NW
Suite 1100 North
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202.585.9649
Email: gportner@amgen.com
www.amgen.com
September 22, 2026
William N. Parham, III
Director
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs
Division of Regulations Development
Attention: OMB Control ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. Greg Portner Senior Vice President Global Government Affairs & Policy 601 Thirteenth Street, NW Suite 1100 North Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202.585.9649 Email: gportner@amgen.com www.amgen.com September 22, 2026 William N. Parham, III Director Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs Division of Regulations Development Attention: OMB ControlNumber 0938-1483, CMS-10912
Re: Information Collection Request: Medicare Transaction Facilitator for 2028 under Sections 11001 and 11002 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (CMS-10912)
Dear Director Parham:
Amgen Inc. (Amgen) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Medicare Transaction Facilitator for 2028 under Sections 11001 and 11002 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which CMS released on July 24, 2026.
Amgen is committed to using science and innovation to dramatically improve people's lives, improving access to drugs and biologics (collectively, "drugs," consistent with CMS's convention), and promoting high-quality care for patients. Amgen develops innovative medicines as well as biosimilar biological products. Thus, our interest is to ensure a robust market for, and improve patient access in the United States to, both innovative and biosimilar biological products.
Amgen remains deeply concerned that government price controls implemented under the guise of a fair "negotiation" under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) are stymieing biopharmaceutical innovation at precisely the time when the world needs more new medicines to treat an aging population. Though we also continue to believe the IRA is unlawful, we submit these comments on certain aspects of the ICR for IPAY 2028 as part of our ongoing commitment to patients and in an effort to bring to CMS's attention the myriad problems the IRA contains and creates.
1 91 Fed. Reg. 46,786 (July 24, 2026).
September 22, 2026
Comments on OMB Control Number 0938-1483, CMS-10912
Page 2 of 3
Biopharmaceutical innovation is key to improving public health and people's lives. We encourage CMS to consider the impact on innovation as well as the impact on biosimilar development and patient access as it develops policy for this and other IRA-related programs.
Below, Amgen provides comments on Appendix B (the "Primary Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plan Form") and Appendix D (the "Complaint and Dispute Intake Form") of the ICR. To protect confidential manufacturer information, Amgen urges CMS to limit any release of Segment 1 of Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plans to dispensing entities and Part B providers. Additionally, Amgen recommends CMS require dispensers and providers to use and complete the Good Faith Inquiry (GFI), or a similar process available through an alternative MFP effectuation platform, before proceeding with a complaint or dispute.
Amgen strongly supports the comments of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) on this ICR.
I. CMS SHOULD LIMIT ACCESS TO SEGMENT 1 OF MANUFACTURER EFFECTUATION PLANS TO ONLY DISPENSERS AND PART B PROVIDERS (APPENDIX B PRIMARY MANUFACTURER MFP EFFECTUATION PLAN FORM)
CMS is proposing the content included in Segment 1 of Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plan be made available to dispensing entities, Part B providers, and, possibly, other stakeholders upon request without redactions; and the content in Segment 2 of the Form be withheld from public release and retained for internal government use only.
2 With respect to Segment 1, Amgen appreciates that CMS is taking steps to make information available to dispensers and providers on manufacturers' anticipated approaches to calculating MFP refund amounts through Section 4 of Segment 1 of Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plans. However, we do not support CMS making this information available to other stakeholders upon request, with or without redactions.
Amgen remains concerned that Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plans may contain proprietary and otherwise confidential business information, and that additional safeguards are needed to protect manufacturer-submitted information. Under the statute, CMS is obligated to keep manufacturer-submitted information confidential for use only by CMS and the Comptroller General.
3 Therefore, to balance the need for operational transparency with the need to protect manufacturers' confidential information, CMS should: (1) expressly limit any disclosure of Segment 1 of Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plans to dispensing entities and Part B providers, (2) maintain the proposed approach of not disclosing Segment 2 Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plans information publicly, and (3) work cooperatively with the manufacturers to redact any confidential information before any disclosure.
3 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Appendix B: Drug Price Negotiation Program MTF DM Primary Manufacturer MFP Effectuation Plan Form, OMB Control No. 0938-1483, available at: https://www.cms.gov/files/zip/cms-10912.zip.
September 22, 2026
Comments on OMB Control Number 0938-1483, CMS-10912
Page 3 of 3
II. CMS SHOULD REQUIRE GOOD FAITH INQUIRY (GFI) RESOLUTION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A COMPLAINT OR DISPUTE (APPENDIX D COMPLAINT AND DISPUTE INTAKE FORM)
CMS's current and proposed effectuation guidance encourages dispensing entities and/or Part B providers and Primary Manufacturers to work together in good faith to resolve any issues regarding MFP before submitting a complaint to CMS.4
CMS should modify Question 3M in Appendix D to clarify that dispensers and providers must first initiate and complete a Good Faith Inquiry (GFI), or a similar process available through an alternative MFP effectuation platform.
5 CMS should decline to proceed with a complaint or dispute unless the dispenser or provider reports in response to Question 3M that the GFI has been completed, including that it was resolved within the time frame specified by the effectuation platform.
This clarification would reduce unnecessary burden on CMS by avoiding concurrent GFI and complaint or dispute processes. It also would allow dispensers and providers whose inquiry is resolved to their satisfaction to avoid initiating a separate complaint or dispute with CMS.
We appreciate CMS's consideration of these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact Yola Gawlik at (202) 320-1159 or ygawlik@amgen.com if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Greg Portner
Senior Vice President
Global Government Affairs & Policy
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CMS-2026-2608-0011
American Seed Trade Association Urges USDA to Emphasize Use of High-Quality Seeds and Reevaluate Buffer Strip Requirements
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
first-the seed(R) 1701 Duke Street Suite 275 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (703) 837-8140 Fax: (703) 837-9365
October 1, 2026
Chief Colton Buckley
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
1400 Independence Avenue
Washington, DC 20250
Re: Docket No. NRCS-2026-0100
Dear Chief Buckley:
The American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) welcomes the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed changes to the conservation ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. first-the seed(R) 1701 Duke Street Suite 275 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (703) 837-8140 Fax: (703) 837-9365 October 1, 2026 Chief Colton Buckley USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1400 Independence Avenue Washington, DC 20250 Re: Docket No. NRCS-2026-0100 Dear Chief Buckley: The American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) welcomes the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed changes to the conservationpractice standards in the National Handbook of Conservation Practices (Docket No. NRCS-2026-0100). Our nearly 700 members represent companies and researchers involved in the production, distribution, plant breeding, and related activities that comprise the supply chain, for every kind of seed (grasses, forages, flowers, vegetables, row crops, and cereals) and across every production system (conventional, organic, and biotechnology). Ninety-five percent of ASTA's active members are small businesses according to the Small Business Administration's categorization, while the total membership represents roughly 85% of all private seed companies operating in the United States. The strong representation across the forage, turf, and grass seed production supply chain enables ASTA to harness a variety of diverse perspectives to offer meaningful recommendations to improve the Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS)'s delivery of conservation assistance.
The American Seed Trade Association appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on several of the proposed conservation practice standards.
595 -Pest Management Conservation System
ASTA appreciates the opportunity to provide information on treated seed and specifically recommendations on appropriate stewardship of the use of treated seed. ASTA partners with others in the agricultural commodity production chain -- Agricultural Retailers Association, American Soybean Association, CropLife America, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cotton Council and the National Corn Growers Association -- to highlight these messages during planning season, making sure stewardship practices are top of mind for producers using treated seed.
We remain concerned that NRCS recommendations would be viewed as encouraging producers to not use treated seeds. ASTA appreciates the removal of the sentence "Do not neonicotinoid [sic] treated seeds." However, recommendations to avoid or minimize the use of treated crop seeds remain concerning.
Farmers who use treated seeds may reduce the number of pesticide spray applications needed during the growing season, helping minimize chemical droplet drift, off-target pesticide movement, and volatile organic compounds emissions. As a result, humans and pollinators alike encounter less pesticides in the environment. Additionally, seed treatments selectively control insect pests and help ensure that beneficial insects remain available to counter other potential pests. Because some pests can damage the seed or seedling to the extent that there are no rescue treatment options available and the plants may either die or not produce a harvestable yield, seed treatments give farmers confidence that they are proactively managing early-season risk and minimizing the expense and environmental impact of replanting. Therefore, the use of treated seeds directly reduces the environmental impact of the crop production process.
Additionally, treated seeds help producers adopt other conservation practices. While cover cropping and no-till farming, for example, are important conservation practices, they can also increase pest pressure in some cropping systems because they increase plant residue in the field. In some cropping systems, pests use the residue for habitat and protection, enhancing their survival and reproduction outcomes.
Treated seeds provide an important first line of defense from soil born pests and disease through germination and emergence. By helping protect the developing seedling during its most vulnerable time, innovative seed treatments allow farmers to minimize plant pressure and decrease their impact on natural resources and non-target organisms. Producer access to multiple tools to create and execute pest management programs is important both for the farmer as well as for the environment.
NRCS added the following sentence that ASTA believes is unnecessary:
When including pesticide treated seed in the crop rotation, add a vegetative buffer strip between the planted seed area and adjacent lands.
The use of a vegetative buffer strip is not a requirement for the use of treated seeds and should not be included in the practice standard. NRCS has not documented the need for a buffer strip. ASTA recommends the removal of the sentence to add a vegetative buffer strip between the planted (treated) seed and adjacent lands.
The NRCS pest management environmental risk tool, WIN PST, does not include treated seeds. NRCS should evaluate updating or replacing the WIN PST tool with a more user-friendly tool to reflect the current on-farm practices, equipment, precision applications, and pest management tools used by farmers to assess potential environmental risk to be mitigated through conservation practices.
ASTA remains available for continued discussions on this issue and is pleased to make the stewardship guide to the use of treated seeds available for use in the practice standard and dissemination to field offices.
342 - Critical Planting Area 420 - Wildlife Habitat Planting 512 - Pasture and Hay Planting
ASTA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the three "planting" conservation practice standards that are open for comment through the Federal Register. The draft standards include important seed references to appropriate labels, testing and quality seeds, and compliance with federal and state seed laws for critical planting areas, wildlife habitat planting and pasture and hay planting. Each of these standards include three of the same sentences:
Seed must have a label or seed lab analysis which complies with federal and state seed laws, including germination, purity, and weed content. Seeding recommendations are based on pure live seed (PLS) to ensure the planting meets state implementation requirements for the practice and purpose. Seed will be free of federal or state prohibited noxious weed seed and meet any requirements for restricted noxious weed seed.
ASTA supports these three sentences and encourages NRCS to provide additional consistency across these standards to include the use of high- quality seeds to meet the conservation goals. ASTA recommends:
Use high- quality, professionally produced, resilient seed to meet conservation goals. Seed should be tested by an accredited and audited seed lab.
ASTA also supports the inclusion of references to certified seed and Pre-Variety Germplasm certification, as included in practice 342 - Critical Planting Area, and the reference to testing for seed purity and germination, as included in practice 420, Wildlife Habitat Planting.
While these three standards are being updated and are open for review, ASTA recommends that additional consistency in wording of the seed use in these "planting" practice standards be consistent across the individual standards.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these practice standards.
Sincerely,
Andrew W. LaVigne President & CEO
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NRCS-2026-0100-0027
first-the seed(R) 1701 Duke Street Suite 275 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (703) 837-8140 Fax: (703) 837-9365
October 1, 2026
Chief Colton Buckley
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
1400 Independence Avenue
Washington, DC 20250
Re: Docket No. NRCS-2026-0100
Dear Chief Buckley:
The American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) welcomes the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed changes to the conservation ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. first-the seed(R) 1701 Duke Street Suite 275 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (703) 837-8140 Fax: (703) 837-9365 October 1, 2026 Chief Colton Buckley USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1400 Independence Avenue Washington, DC 20250 Re: Docket No. NRCS-2026-0100 Dear Chief Buckley: The American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) welcomes the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed changes to the conservationpractice standards in the National Handbook of Conservation Practices (Docket No. NRCS-2026-0100). Our nearly 700 members represent companies and researchers involved in the production, distribution, plant breeding, and related activities that comprise the supply chain, for every kind of seed (grasses, forages, flowers, vegetables, row crops, and cereals) and across every production system (conventional, organic, and biotechnology). Ninety-five percent of ASTA's active members are small businesses according to the Small Business Administration's categorization, while the total membership represents roughly 85% of all private seed companies operating in the United States. The strong representation across the forage, turf, and grass seed production supply chain enables ASTA to harness a variety of diverse perspectives to offer meaningful recommendations to improve the Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS)'s delivery of conservation assistance.
The American Seed Trade Association appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on several of the proposed conservation practice standards.
595 -Pest Management Conservation System
ASTA appreciates the opportunity to provide information on treated seed and specifically recommendations on appropriate stewardship of the use of treated seed. ASTA partners with others in the agricultural commodity production chain -- Agricultural Retailers Association, American Soybean Association, CropLife America, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cotton Council and the National Corn Growers Association -- to highlight these messages during planning season, making sure stewardship practices are top of mind for producers using treated seed.
We remain concerned that NRCS recommendations would be viewed as encouraging producers to not use treated seeds. ASTA appreciates the removal of the sentence "Do not neonicotinoid [sic] treated seeds." However, recommendations to avoid or minimize the use of treated crop seeds remain concerning.
Farmers who use treated seeds may reduce the number of pesticide spray applications needed during the growing season, helping minimize chemical droplet drift, off-target pesticide movement, and volatile organic compounds emissions. As a result, humans and pollinators alike encounter less pesticides in the environment. Additionally, seed treatments selectively control insect pests and help ensure that beneficial insects remain available to counter other potential pests. Because some pests can damage the seed or seedling to the extent that there are no rescue treatment options available and the plants may either die or not produce a harvestable yield, seed treatments give farmers confidence that they are proactively managing early-season risk and minimizing the expense and environmental impact of replanting. Therefore, the use of treated seeds directly reduces the environmental impact of the crop production process.
Additionally, treated seeds help producers adopt other conservation practices. While cover cropping and no-till farming, for example, are important conservation practices, they can also increase pest pressure in some cropping systems because they increase plant residue in the field. In some cropping systems, pests use the residue for habitat and protection, enhancing their survival and reproduction outcomes.
Treated seeds provide an important first line of defense from soil born pests and disease through germination and emergence. By helping protect the developing seedling during its most vulnerable time, innovative seed treatments allow farmers to minimize plant pressure and decrease their impact on natural resources and non-target organisms. Producer access to multiple tools to create and execute pest management programs is important both for the farmer as well as for the environment.
NRCS added the following sentence that ASTA believes is unnecessary:
When including pesticide treated seed in the crop rotation, add a vegetative buffer strip between the planted seed area and adjacent lands.
The use of a vegetative buffer strip is not a requirement for the use of treated seeds and should not be included in the practice standard. NRCS has not documented the need for a buffer strip. ASTA recommends the removal of the sentence to add a vegetative buffer strip between the planted (treated) seed and adjacent lands.
The NRCS pest management environmental risk tool, WIN PST, does not include treated seeds. NRCS should evaluate updating or replacing the WIN PST tool with a more user-friendly tool to reflect the current on-farm practices, equipment, precision applications, and pest management tools used by farmers to assess potential environmental risk to be mitigated through conservation practices.
ASTA remains available for continued discussions on this issue and is pleased to make the stewardship guide to the use of treated seeds available for use in the practice standard and dissemination to field offices.
342 - Critical Planting Area 420 - Wildlife Habitat Planting 512 - Pasture and Hay Planting
ASTA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the three "planting" conservation practice standards that are open for comment through the Federal Register. The draft standards include important seed references to appropriate labels, testing and quality seeds, and compliance with federal and state seed laws for critical planting areas, wildlife habitat planting and pasture and hay planting. Each of these standards include three of the same sentences:
Seed must have a label or seed lab analysis which complies with federal and state seed laws, including germination, purity, and weed content. Seeding recommendations are based on pure live seed (PLS) to ensure the planting meets state implementation requirements for the practice and purpose. Seed will be free of federal or state prohibited noxious weed seed and meet any requirements for restricted noxious weed seed.
ASTA supports these three sentences and encourages NRCS to provide additional consistency across these standards to include the use of high- quality seeds to meet the conservation goals. ASTA recommends:
Use high- quality, professionally produced, resilient seed to meet conservation goals. Seed should be tested by an accredited and audited seed lab.
ASTA also supports the inclusion of references to certified seed and Pre-Variety Germplasm certification, as included in practice 342 - Critical Planting Area, and the reference to testing for seed purity and germination, as included in practice 420, Wildlife Habitat Planting.
While these three standards are being updated and are open for review, ASTA recommends that additional consistency in wording of the seed use in these "planting" practice standards be consistent across the individual standards.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these practice standards.
Sincerely,
Andrew W. LaVigne President & CEO
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NRCS-2026-0100-0027
BNSF Railway Supports Border Rail Operations and Calls for Clarification on Cross-Border Train Movement Regulations
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
Before the
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
FRA-2026-2014
QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND CONDUCTORS; ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Comments of BNSF Railway Company
BNSF Railway Company submits these comments in response to FRA's July 31, 2026 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the above-captioned docket proposing to add requirements pertaining to English language proficiency ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. Before the FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION FRA-2026-2014 QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND CONDUCTORS; ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS Comments of BNSF Railway Company BNSF Railway Company submits these comments in response to FRA's July 31, 2026 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the above-captioned docket proposing to add requirements pertaining to English language proficiencyand other requirements with respect to the qualification and certification of locomotive engineers and conductors. BNSF appreciates FRA's interest in promoting railroad safety as well as the opportunity to provide suggestions for practical improvements to the Proposed Rule. In addition, BNSF supports and joins the joint comment filed by the Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (the "Associations' Comment").
Statement of Interest
BNSF is a Class I railroad that operates a network of 32,500 route miles across 28 states and three Canadian provinces, including interchange points with Mexican railroads at Eagle Pass, Texas and El Paso, Texas. BNSF employs over 14,000 train service employees, including locomotive engineers and conductors qualified under Parts 240 and 242 respectively.
Improving Interchange at the U.S.-Mexico Border Is Good for the Economy and Border Security
BNSF supports FRA's recognition of the need for operational flexibility to improve train interchange at the U.S.-Mexico border by permitting properly qualified employees of Mexican railroads to operate trains between the border and U.S. rail yards located near the border. Policies that permit railroads to safely make interchanges more efficiently at the border will not only benefit the efficiency of the rail network but will generate additional opportunities for American exporters and promote greater border security.
Mexico has become the United States' top trading partner in goods--in 2025, the total trade value in goods valued at nearly $873 billion.1 Rail accounted for approximately 11% of the goods trade with Mexico.2 A far greater proportion of U.S.-Mexico trade crosses the border by truck, which is less efficient and less safe, and congestion at the ports of entry poses an ongoing challenge for the U.S.-Mexico goods trade. Policies that improve rail fluidity at the border will promote greater adoption of rail for this freight, and in particular, for exports of American bulk commodities such as grain and other agricultural products.
In addition, improving fluidity at the border will reduce opportunities for unauthorized entries into the U.S. and thereby promote border security. Historically, interchange of trains between Mexican and U.S. railroads has taken place either on the international bridges crossing the Rio Grande River or immediately adjacent to them. In either event, the main line at the border crossing is occupied for the duration of the interchange, increasing the amount of time other northbound trains stage while awaiting a slot to cross and providing an opportunity for migrants to board cars in the trains' consists. Providing railroads with the flexibility to operate trains directly between the border and nearby rail yards will reduce staged trains and opportunities to enter the U.S. by hiding aboard northbound freight trains.
1 Congressional Research Service, IF11175, U.S.-Mexico Trade Relations 1 (May 18, 2026).
2 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, BTS 26-47, Transborder Freight Data Annual Report, available at https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/transborder-freight-data-annual-report-2025-0 (May 15, 2026).
3
FRA Should Ensure Sections 240.227 and 242.127 Reflect the Intent to Permit Railroads to Operate Trains Into or Out of Rail Yards Near the Border
FRA has stated it believes a ten-mile limitation on Mexico-based crews' ability to operate in the U.S. is necessary for safety, independently of English language proficiency requirements.3 Notwithstanding any broader concerns articulated in the Associations' Comment with respect to the proposed ten-mile limitation, BNSF supports the concept of providing a straightforward framework to permit Mexico-based crews to operate to a rational interchange point near the border without requiring full submissions under Parts 240, 242, and 219. BNSF understands that the proposed revisions to 49 C.F.R. Sec. 240.227 and 49 C.F.R. Sec. 242.127 seek to create this framework, specifically to permit a Mexico-based crew to yard a northbound train into an arrival track or depart a southbound train from a departure track from a yard located within ten miles of the border but not to permit main line operations beyond that yard.
As written, however, the proposed rule text could be interpreted to be prescriptive as to the precise route within a yard a crew operates a train to or from the designated track, which we do not believe was FRA's intent. For instance, many rail yards have multiple turnouts from the main track to reach different leads and spot tracks within the yard, and train crews may undertake an incidental main line move to reach the appropriate turnout within a yard to land a train. This is a common practice throughout the rail network and is practically different from a through train operation bypassing a yard to continue on the main line.
However, proposed Section 240.227(c)(3)(ii)4 could be interpreted as requiring a train to be operated on main track only to the first turnout, which may prevent a crew from actually reaching the designated receiving track within the yard. Such an interpretation would frustrate the 3 Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers and Conductors; English Language Proficiency and Other Requirements, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (hereafter "NPRM"), 91 Fed. Reg. 48345, 48347 (July 31, 2026).
4 The proposed rule text of Section 242.127(c)(3)(ii) is identical to the corresponding proposed text in Part 240.
4
intent of the proposed rule text, which seeks to authorize a Mexico-based crew to operate a train into the designated receiving track at a rail yard located within ten miles of the border. BNSF would propose a minor revision to this paragraph to eliminate the potential for misinterpretation and ensure the efficiency and security benefits of the framework while also preserving the intent of the proposed rule text not to authorize operations beyond what is necessary to yard a northbound train. The proposed revision to the applicable sections is below:
Sec. 240.227 Qualification requirements for international cross-border operations.5
. . .
(c) Mexican Operations. A controlling U.S. railroad that conducts operations with a Mexican railroad may certify a person as a locomotive engineer provided the railroad determines that: . . .
(3) The person's operation on the U.S. railroad is limited to a continuous movement between the international border and a U.S. railroad yard, provided that:
. . .
(ii) For northbound movements, the train proceeds directly into the yard and travels no further north than necessary to clear the yard's entry switches and place the train on its designated receiving track does not operate on main track beyond the northernmost entry point of the yard; and
. . .
This proposed revision avoids any interpretation that could lead to unnatural and inefficient yard operations without expanding the scope of Mexico-based crews to operate on the U.S. rail network and is thus consistent with FRA's intent in proposing a ten-mile limitation. Accordingly, 5 For brevity, BNSF notes that we propose the same modification to the applicable portion of Section 242.127.
5
BNSF requests that FRA revise the ten-mile limitation, if codified, in the manner described above.
BNSF appreciates FRA's consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Travis Owsley
BNSF Railway Company
2500 Lou Menk Drive
Fort Worth, Texas 76131
September 29, 2026
Counsel for BNSF Railway Company
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2026-2014-0012
Before the
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
FRA-2026-2014
QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND CONDUCTORS; ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Comments of BNSF Railway Company
BNSF Railway Company submits these comments in response to FRA's July 31, 2026 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the above-captioned docket proposing to add requirements pertaining to English language proficiency ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. Before the FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION FRA-2026-2014 QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND CONDUCTORS; ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS Comments of BNSF Railway Company BNSF Railway Company submits these comments in response to FRA's July 31, 2026 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the above-captioned docket proposing to add requirements pertaining to English language proficiencyand other requirements with respect to the qualification and certification of locomotive engineers and conductors. BNSF appreciates FRA's interest in promoting railroad safety as well as the opportunity to provide suggestions for practical improvements to the Proposed Rule. In addition, BNSF supports and joins the joint comment filed by the Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (the "Associations' Comment").
Statement of Interest
BNSF is a Class I railroad that operates a network of 32,500 route miles across 28 states and three Canadian provinces, including interchange points with Mexican railroads at Eagle Pass, Texas and El Paso, Texas. BNSF employs over 14,000 train service employees, including locomotive engineers and conductors qualified under Parts 240 and 242 respectively.
Improving Interchange at the U.S.-Mexico Border Is Good for the Economy and Border Security
BNSF supports FRA's recognition of the need for operational flexibility to improve train interchange at the U.S.-Mexico border by permitting properly qualified employees of Mexican railroads to operate trains between the border and U.S. rail yards located near the border. Policies that permit railroads to safely make interchanges more efficiently at the border will not only benefit the efficiency of the rail network but will generate additional opportunities for American exporters and promote greater border security.
Mexico has become the United States' top trading partner in goods--in 2025, the total trade value in goods valued at nearly $873 billion.1 Rail accounted for approximately 11% of the goods trade with Mexico.2 A far greater proportion of U.S.-Mexico trade crosses the border by truck, which is less efficient and less safe, and congestion at the ports of entry poses an ongoing challenge for the U.S.-Mexico goods trade. Policies that improve rail fluidity at the border will promote greater adoption of rail for this freight, and in particular, for exports of American bulk commodities such as grain and other agricultural products.
In addition, improving fluidity at the border will reduce opportunities for unauthorized entries into the U.S. and thereby promote border security. Historically, interchange of trains between Mexican and U.S. railroads has taken place either on the international bridges crossing the Rio Grande River or immediately adjacent to them. In either event, the main line at the border crossing is occupied for the duration of the interchange, increasing the amount of time other northbound trains stage while awaiting a slot to cross and providing an opportunity for migrants to board cars in the trains' consists. Providing railroads with the flexibility to operate trains directly between the border and nearby rail yards will reduce staged trains and opportunities to enter the U.S. by hiding aboard northbound freight trains.
1 Congressional Research Service, IF11175, U.S.-Mexico Trade Relations 1 (May 18, 2026).
2 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, BTS 26-47, Transborder Freight Data Annual Report, available at https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/transborder-freight-data-annual-report-2025-0 (May 15, 2026).
3
FRA Should Ensure Sections 240.227 and 242.127 Reflect the Intent to Permit Railroads to Operate Trains Into or Out of Rail Yards Near the Border
FRA has stated it believes a ten-mile limitation on Mexico-based crews' ability to operate in the U.S. is necessary for safety, independently of English language proficiency requirements.3 Notwithstanding any broader concerns articulated in the Associations' Comment with respect to the proposed ten-mile limitation, BNSF supports the concept of providing a straightforward framework to permit Mexico-based crews to operate to a rational interchange point near the border without requiring full submissions under Parts 240, 242, and 219. BNSF understands that the proposed revisions to 49 C.F.R. Sec. 240.227 and 49 C.F.R. Sec. 242.127 seek to create this framework, specifically to permit a Mexico-based crew to yard a northbound train into an arrival track or depart a southbound train from a departure track from a yard located within ten miles of the border but not to permit main line operations beyond that yard.
As written, however, the proposed rule text could be interpreted to be prescriptive as to the precise route within a yard a crew operates a train to or from the designated track, which we do not believe was FRA's intent. For instance, many rail yards have multiple turnouts from the main track to reach different leads and spot tracks within the yard, and train crews may undertake an incidental main line move to reach the appropriate turnout within a yard to land a train. This is a common practice throughout the rail network and is practically different from a through train operation bypassing a yard to continue on the main line.
However, proposed Section 240.227(c)(3)(ii)4 could be interpreted as requiring a train to be operated on main track only to the first turnout, which may prevent a crew from actually reaching the designated receiving track within the yard. Such an interpretation would frustrate the 3 Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers and Conductors; English Language Proficiency and Other Requirements, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (hereafter "NPRM"), 91 Fed. Reg. 48345, 48347 (July 31, 2026).
4 The proposed rule text of Section 242.127(c)(3)(ii) is identical to the corresponding proposed text in Part 240.
4
intent of the proposed rule text, which seeks to authorize a Mexico-based crew to operate a train into the designated receiving track at a rail yard located within ten miles of the border. BNSF would propose a minor revision to this paragraph to eliminate the potential for misinterpretation and ensure the efficiency and security benefits of the framework while also preserving the intent of the proposed rule text not to authorize operations beyond what is necessary to yard a northbound train. The proposed revision to the applicable sections is below:
Sec. 240.227 Qualification requirements for international cross-border operations.5
. . .
(c) Mexican Operations. A controlling U.S. railroad that conducts operations with a Mexican railroad may certify a person as a locomotive engineer provided the railroad determines that: . . .
(3) The person's operation on the U.S. railroad is limited to a continuous movement between the international border and a U.S. railroad yard, provided that:
. . .
(ii) For northbound movements, the train proceeds directly into the yard and travels no further north than necessary to clear the yard's entry switches and place the train on its designated receiving track does not operate on main track beyond the northernmost entry point of the yard; and
. . .
This proposed revision avoids any interpretation that could lead to unnatural and inefficient yard operations without expanding the scope of Mexico-based crews to operate on the U.S. rail network and is thus consistent with FRA's intent in proposing a ten-mile limitation. Accordingly, 5 For brevity, BNSF notes that we propose the same modification to the applicable portion of Section 242.127.
5
BNSF requests that FRA revise the ten-mile limitation, if codified, in the manner described above.
BNSF appreciates FRA's consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Travis Owsley
BNSF Railway Company
2500 Lou Menk Drive
Fort Worth, Texas 76131
September 29, 2026
Counsel for BNSF Railway Company
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2026-2014-0012
American Pharmacists Association Urges CMS to Address Burdens and Payment Delays in Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
September 22, 2026
Evell J. Barco Holland
Federal Register Liaison
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Room C4-26-05
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
RE: [Docket No. CMS-10912 and CMS-10174] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request
Dear Liaison Holland,
The American Pharmacists Association (APhA) appreciates the opportunity to provide CMS comments ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. September 22, 2026 Evell J. Barco Holland Federal Register Liaison Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Room C4-26-05 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 RE: [Docket No. CMS-10912 and CMS-10174] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request Dear Liaison Holland, The American Pharmacists Association (APhA) appreciates the opportunity to provide CMS commentson the notice of the Medicare Transaction Facilitator under Sections 11001 and 11002 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Information Collection Request.
APhA represents pharmacists, student pharmacists, and pharmacy technicians in all practice settings, including but not limited to community pharmacies, hospitals, long-term care facilities, specialty pharmacies, community health centers, physician offices, ambulatory clinics, managed care organizations, hospice settings, and government facilities. Our members strive to improve medication use, advance patient care, and enhance public health.
The Medicare Transaction Facilitator (MTF) comprises the MTF Data Module (DM) and the MTF Payment Module (PM).1 CMS notes that "[p]articipation in the MTF PM is voluntary for Primary Manufacturers and no information will be collected by the MTF PM[, as] the MTF PM is structured exclusively as a pass through mechanism to assist affected parties in the transfer of Primary Manufacturer funds."2 However, Primary Manufacturers must participate in the MTF DM.3 CMS states that "[t]he MTF DM will establish accounts for each Primary Manufacturer that is participating in the Negotiation Program and will provide information to each participating Primary Manufacturer to facilitate access to the MTF DM platform."4 As part of the Drug Price Negotiation Program, CMS is required to collect data and information used to operate the MTF, facilitate MFP effectuation, process complaints and disputes, and ensure overall compliance.5 APhA provides CMS with the following comments regarding the MTF.
Before the implementation of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program at the beginning of this year, APhA consistently raised that mandating pharmacies to enroll in the MTF DM will subject pharmacies to significant losses, create administrative burdens on the pharmacy, and force them to float the costs of the program's operations while waiting for reimbursements that are likely to be lower than their acquisition costs. Many of these concerns have turned into reality, as pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and pharmacy team personnel report to CMS each month during the "Pharmacy, Pharmacist, and Pharmacy Industry Stakeholders Monthly Technical Call on Implementation of Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program Provisions" that they are still having difficulties with the MTF nine months after implementation. Pharmacies are still devoting significant staff time of both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians for claim reconciliation, payment tracking, dispute resolution, resubmissions, and troubleshooting. As such, acknowledging the notice focuses heavily on manufacturers, APhA is concerned CMS understates the burden on dispensing entities associated with the MTF. Thus, APhA recommends CMS reevaluate its burden estimates to account for the time pharmacies spend on correcting claims, reconciling payments, resolving disputes, and monitoring payment status.
A specific issue consistently raised in the monthly technical calls and with APhA is that the Beacon MFP is rejecting MFP claims related to refunds for 340B drugs. These refund claims are still being rejected despite good-faith inquiries. As part of this notice, CMS should quantify this burden and ensure future estimates associated with operationalizing the MTF account for these challenges. Additionally, APhA urges CMS to work with Beacon MFP, Primary Manufacturers, and pharmacies to resolve this issue, as this process is overburdening pharmacies with required data entry and reconciliation.
While some payment-related concerns have stabilized since the program's initial rollout, pharmacies still wait a significant amount of time to receive funds from the Primary Manufacturer for the corresponding drugs. A July 2026 survey by the National Community Pharmacists Association found that 27.6% of respondents waited an average of 15-21 days from the fill date to receive funds.6 The same survey found that 38.5% of respondents waited an average of 22-28 days.7 As a result of issues with payment wait times, 76.9% of pharmacy owners in this survey noted they "are minimizing on-hand inventory of high-dollar drugs [emphasis added]."8 This has also caused 62.2% of pharmacy owners to dip into their pharmacy savings.9 APhA has heard from pharmacists who have to extend lines of credit into the hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain this inventory while awaiting repayment. This burden is most acute for independent and rural pharmacies, which may have limited cash reserves and staffing resources. As CMS evaluates the effectiveness of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, it is important that CMS assess not only beneficiary savings but also the operational performance of the MTF and its impact on dispensing entities. A program designed to lower patient costs should not inadvertently jeopardize pharmacy sustainability or patient access to negotiated medications. Accordingly, APhA urges CMS to collect information on the average time pharmacies wait to receive payment after filling these medications. CMS should also publicly report this information and other metrics related to MTF performance, including the average time between claim submission and payment, the number of disputed claims, the average time to resolve disputes, and the total number of rejected claims. Additionally, CMS should work to shorten this wait time and improve MTF functionality to speed up payment processing, so that payment wait times do not continue to put pressure on small pharmacies.
Regarding payments, CMS must also ensure that the maximum fair price (MFP) does not fall below the acquisition costs of these medications and that pharmacists are also paid an adequate dispensing fee. If pharmacies are not reimbursed for their acquisition costs and time, patient access to these medications will be compromised, which runs counter to the goals of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Accordingly, APhA requests CMS collect information on payment adequacy and timeliness, as both are essential in ongoing oversight of the MTF and its associated burdens.
APhA encourages CMS to continue refining the MTF to ensure pharmacies are not overly burdened by it or its associated processes. As CMS works to modify MTF to effectuate the MFPs of future medications subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and to enroll new Primary Manufacturers and pharmacies, each party must be appropriately trained and educated on these changes to ensure that payments are not delayed or inappropriately denied. APhA appreciates CMS's monthly technical calls for pharmacy, pharmacists, and pharmacy industry stakeholders, however, APhA supports CMS creating additional resources to educate these parties about any modifications to the MTF or the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. APhA urges CMS to fully account for the burden pharmacies experience in participating in the MTF, including claim corrections, payment reconciliation, dispute resolution, rejected claims, and delayed reimbursements. Accurate measurement of these burdens is essential to ensuring the long-term viability and effectiveness of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Additionally, when appropriate and consistent with the objective of minimizing the collection burden through technology, CMS should pursue system enhancements that reduce data entry and automate processes to streamline the entire process.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this notice. If you have any questions or would like to meet with APhA and our nation's pharmacists, please contact Corey Whetzel, APhA's Senior Manager, Regulatory Affairs, at cwhetzel@aphanet.org.
Sincerely,
Michael Baxter
Vice President, Government Affairs
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CMS-2026-2608-0009
September 22, 2026
Evell J. Barco Holland
Federal Register Liaison
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Room C4-26-05
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
RE: [Docket No. CMS-10912 and CMS-10174] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request
Dear Liaison Holland,
The American Pharmacists Association (APhA) appreciates the opportunity to provide CMS comments ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. September 22, 2026 Evell J. Barco Holland Federal Register Liaison Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Room C4-26-05 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 RE: [Docket No. CMS-10912 and CMS-10174] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request Dear Liaison Holland, The American Pharmacists Association (APhA) appreciates the opportunity to provide CMS commentson the notice of the Medicare Transaction Facilitator under Sections 11001 and 11002 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Information Collection Request.
APhA represents pharmacists, student pharmacists, and pharmacy technicians in all practice settings, including but not limited to community pharmacies, hospitals, long-term care facilities, specialty pharmacies, community health centers, physician offices, ambulatory clinics, managed care organizations, hospice settings, and government facilities. Our members strive to improve medication use, advance patient care, and enhance public health.
The Medicare Transaction Facilitator (MTF) comprises the MTF Data Module (DM) and the MTF Payment Module (PM).1 CMS notes that "[p]articipation in the MTF PM is voluntary for Primary Manufacturers and no information will be collected by the MTF PM[, as] the MTF PM is structured exclusively as a pass through mechanism to assist affected parties in the transfer of Primary Manufacturer funds."2 However, Primary Manufacturers must participate in the MTF DM.3 CMS states that "[t]he MTF DM will establish accounts for each Primary Manufacturer that is participating in the Negotiation Program and will provide information to each participating Primary Manufacturer to facilitate access to the MTF DM platform."4 As part of the Drug Price Negotiation Program, CMS is required to collect data and information used to operate the MTF, facilitate MFP effectuation, process complaints and disputes, and ensure overall compliance.5 APhA provides CMS with the following comments regarding the MTF.
Before the implementation of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program at the beginning of this year, APhA consistently raised that mandating pharmacies to enroll in the MTF DM will subject pharmacies to significant losses, create administrative burdens on the pharmacy, and force them to float the costs of the program's operations while waiting for reimbursements that are likely to be lower than their acquisition costs. Many of these concerns have turned into reality, as pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and pharmacy team personnel report to CMS each month during the "Pharmacy, Pharmacist, and Pharmacy Industry Stakeholders Monthly Technical Call on Implementation of Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program Provisions" that they are still having difficulties with the MTF nine months after implementation. Pharmacies are still devoting significant staff time of both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians for claim reconciliation, payment tracking, dispute resolution, resubmissions, and troubleshooting. As such, acknowledging the notice focuses heavily on manufacturers, APhA is concerned CMS understates the burden on dispensing entities associated with the MTF. Thus, APhA recommends CMS reevaluate its burden estimates to account for the time pharmacies spend on correcting claims, reconciling payments, resolving disputes, and monitoring payment status.
A specific issue consistently raised in the monthly technical calls and with APhA is that the Beacon MFP is rejecting MFP claims related to refunds for 340B drugs. These refund claims are still being rejected despite good-faith inquiries. As part of this notice, CMS should quantify this burden and ensure future estimates associated with operationalizing the MTF account for these challenges. Additionally, APhA urges CMS to work with Beacon MFP, Primary Manufacturers, and pharmacies to resolve this issue, as this process is overburdening pharmacies with required data entry and reconciliation.
While some payment-related concerns have stabilized since the program's initial rollout, pharmacies still wait a significant amount of time to receive funds from the Primary Manufacturer for the corresponding drugs. A July 2026 survey by the National Community Pharmacists Association found that 27.6% of respondents waited an average of 15-21 days from the fill date to receive funds.6 The same survey found that 38.5% of respondents waited an average of 22-28 days.7 As a result of issues with payment wait times, 76.9% of pharmacy owners in this survey noted they "are minimizing on-hand inventory of high-dollar drugs [emphasis added]."8 This has also caused 62.2% of pharmacy owners to dip into their pharmacy savings.9 APhA has heard from pharmacists who have to extend lines of credit into the hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain this inventory while awaiting repayment. This burden is most acute for independent and rural pharmacies, which may have limited cash reserves and staffing resources. As CMS evaluates the effectiveness of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, it is important that CMS assess not only beneficiary savings but also the operational performance of the MTF and its impact on dispensing entities. A program designed to lower patient costs should not inadvertently jeopardize pharmacy sustainability or patient access to negotiated medications. Accordingly, APhA urges CMS to collect information on the average time pharmacies wait to receive payment after filling these medications. CMS should also publicly report this information and other metrics related to MTF performance, including the average time between claim submission and payment, the number of disputed claims, the average time to resolve disputes, and the total number of rejected claims. Additionally, CMS should work to shorten this wait time and improve MTF functionality to speed up payment processing, so that payment wait times do not continue to put pressure on small pharmacies.
Regarding payments, CMS must also ensure that the maximum fair price (MFP) does not fall below the acquisition costs of these medications and that pharmacists are also paid an adequate dispensing fee. If pharmacies are not reimbursed for their acquisition costs and time, patient access to these medications will be compromised, which runs counter to the goals of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Accordingly, APhA requests CMS collect information on payment adequacy and timeliness, as both are essential in ongoing oversight of the MTF and its associated burdens.
APhA encourages CMS to continue refining the MTF to ensure pharmacies are not overly burdened by it or its associated processes. As CMS works to modify MTF to effectuate the MFPs of future medications subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and to enroll new Primary Manufacturers and pharmacies, each party must be appropriately trained and educated on these changes to ensure that payments are not delayed or inappropriately denied. APhA appreciates CMS's monthly technical calls for pharmacy, pharmacists, and pharmacy industry stakeholders, however, APhA supports CMS creating additional resources to educate these parties about any modifications to the MTF or the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. APhA urges CMS to fully account for the burden pharmacies experience in participating in the MTF, including claim corrections, payment reconciliation, dispute resolution, rejected claims, and delayed reimbursements. Accurate measurement of these burdens is essential to ensuring the long-term viability and effectiveness of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Additionally, when appropriate and consistent with the objective of minimizing the collection burden through technology, CMS should pursue system enhancements that reduce data entry and automate processes to streamline the entire process.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this notice. If you have any questions or would like to meet with APhA and our nation's pharmacists, please contact Corey Whetzel, APhA's Senior Manager, Regulatory Affairs, at cwhetzel@aphanet.org.
Sincerely,
Michael Baxter
Vice President, Government Affairs
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CMS-2026-2608-0009
AARP Urges Simplified Implementation of Saver's Match to Boost Retirement Savings for Lower-Income Americans
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
September 24, 2026
The Honorable Frank J. Bisignano
Chief Executive Officer
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224
Re: Notice of Intent to Issue Regulations with Respect to Saver's Match Contributions Notice 2026-48
Dear The Honorable Frank J. Bisignano:
AARP, which advocates for the 125 million Americans age 50 and older, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Internal Revenue ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. September 24, 2026 The Honorable Frank J. Bisignano Chief Executive Officer Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20224 Re: Notice of Intent to Issue Regulations with Respect to Saver's Match Contributions Notice 2026-48 Dear The Honorable Frank J. Bisignano: AARP, which advocates for the 125 million Americans age 50 and older, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Internal RevenueService's "Notice of Intent to Issue Regulations with Respect to Saver's Match Contributions Notice" regarding implementation of the Saver's Match. AARP strongly supported creating the Saver's Match during consideration of the SECURE 2.0 Act because it represents a significant improvement over the Saver's Credit and could help millions of lower- and moderate-income Americans build greater financial security in retirement.
AARP's support for the Saver's Match is grounded in decades of work to improve retirement security and expand access to workplace savings opportunities. AARP research has consistently found that millions of workers lack access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan, making it much harder for them to save for retirement. The retirement savings gap remains one of the most significant financial challenges facing older Americans. Workers who have access to a payroll deduction savings program are significantly more likely to save for retirement than those who are forced to find a separate savings plan. As a result, AARP has long advocated for policies that make saving easier, more automatic, and more accessible for workers at every income level.
In addition to supporting the Saver's Match, AARP has been a leading advocate for state-facilitated retirement savings programs designed to help workers whose employers do not offer retirement plans. These programs are beginning to demonstrate meaningful success in expanding retirement savings opportunities to millions of Americans who previously lacked access to a workplace savings vehicle. The Saver's Match could build on that progress by providing an additional incentive for workers participating in these programs and other retirement savings arrangements. If implemented effectively, the Saver's Match can help narrow the retirement savings gap, increase participation in retirement plans and IRAs, and improve long-term financial security for millions of Americans.
The Saver's Match may be particularly valuable for older workers nearing retirement who have limited time left to build retirement savings. AARP's research has found that many Americans approach retirement with inadequate savings and that workers without access to workplace retirement plans often face significant challenges accumulating assets. For these individuals, the Saver's Match can provide an important incentive to begin saving, increase contributions, and strengthen financial security in the years leading up to retirement.
For the Saver's Match to achieve these goals, however, implementation must be guided by principles of simplicity, accessibility, and consumer understanding. A program that is difficult to navigate or burdensome to claim risks missing many of the individuals Congress intended to benefit. Accordingly, AARP urges Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service to adopt policies that maximize participation, minimize administrative barriers, and ensure that eligible savers can easily receive and retain the full benefit of the Saver's Match.
The Success of Saver's Match Depends on Simplicity
AARP strongly believes that the success of the Saver's Match will depend on whether eligible individuals can easily claim and receive the benefit. The Saver's Match has the potential to become one of the most significant retirement savings incentives available to lower- and moderate-income workers. A complicated claiming process could shut out the very people Congress meant the Saver's Match to help.
Many eligible individuals have limited experience with retirement savings incentives and may be unfamiliar with complex tax or financial concepts. The claiming process should therefore be designed so that taxpayers are not required to gather extensive account information, navigate multiple forms, or undertake additional procedural steps beyond those necessary to file a tax return and verify an eligible contribution. Wherever possible, Treasury and the IRS should automate the process and rely on information already available through existing tax and retirement-plan reporting systems rather than requiring savers to provide duplicative information.
Treasury should also ensure that the claiming process works seamlessly for participants in a broad range of retirement savings arrangements, including state-facilitated retirement savings programs. Clear, consistent procedures across retirement savings vehicles will help reduce confusion and increase participation. In addition, Treasury should provide plain-language consumer guidance explaining eligibility requirements, the claiming process, and the expected timeline for receipt of the matching contribution. These materials should be understandable to individuals with limited financial expertise and available through multiple channels, including tax preparation software, retirement-plan providers, and state savings programs.
Ensure Coordination with State-Facilitated Retirement Savings Programs
AARP strongly supports efforts to expand access to retirement savings opportunities for workers who lack access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan. For more than a decade, AARP has advocated for state-facilitated retirement savings programs as one solution to the nation's significant retirement coverage gap and has worked with policymakers across the country to expand access to workplace savings options. Today, millions of workers have access to state-facilitated retirement savings programs, and these programs have become an increasingly important component of the retirement savings system.
The Saver's Match could significantly strengthen the retirement security benefits these programs provide. Many participants in state-facilitated retirement programs are moderate- and lower-income workers who are precisely the population Congress sought to assist through the Saver's Match. For these workers, the combination of automatic payroll deduction and a federal matching contribution has the potential to substantially increase both participation and account balances over time. Expanding access to the Saver's Match through state-facilitated retirement savings programs could be particularly beneficial for older workers who have spent much of their careers without access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan and have fewer remaining years to build retirement savings.
Because most state programs use Roth IRAs as the default savings vehicle, Treasury and the IRS should provide clear guidance regarding how Saver's Match contributions will be claimed, calculated, and deposited for participants in these arrangements. We are pleased that Treasury recognizes that a mechanism was needed to convert the Saver's Match into a Roth contribution, but the result should not leave the account owner with a higher tax liability. In addition, any uncertainty regarding reporting requirements, account verification, eligibility determinations, or payment procedures could create unnecessary barriers to participation and reduce the effectiveness of the program. Participants in state-facilitated retirement savings programs should be able to access the Saver's Match as easily as workers participating in employer-sponsored retirement plans.
Treasury should also coordinate closely with states and program administrators to minimize administrative burdens and ensure that existing reporting systems can be leveraged whenever possible. Many participants in these programs are first-time savers and may have limited familiarity with retirement plan rules. As a result, additional paperwork, separate enrollment processes, or complex account designation requirements could discourage participation or result in eligible individuals failing to receive the matching contribution. Treasury should instead seek to make the interaction between state retirement programs and the Saver's Match as seamless as possible.
AARP believes that successful implementation of the Saver's Match within state-facilitated retirement savings programs could substantially improve retirement preparedness for millions of workers who currently have limited access to workplace retirement plans. The final regulations should ensure that participants in these programs are fully able to benefit from the Saver's Match and that administrative requirements do not undermine the accessibility that has made these programs successful.
Reduce Delays Between Contribution and Receipt of the Match
AARP supports Treasury's efforts to implement the Saver's Match in a manner that promotes retirement savings among lower- and moderate-income Americans. Treasury and the IRS should minimize the delay between a retirement contribution and receipt of the Saver's Match. A prompt match will make the benefit more visible and reinforce the value of saving.
Many eligible savers live on tight budgets and make difficult choices about whether they can afford to set aside money for retirement. For these individuals, the Saver's Match is intended to reinforce the benefits of saving and encourage continued participation in retirement plans and IRAs. However, if participants must wait extended periods before seeing the federal contribution reflected in their accounts, the incentive value of the match may be diminished. A saver who contributes but does not receive the matching contribution until much later may be less likely to associate the reward with the original saving behavior. This risk is particularly acute for first-time savers and workers with limited financial assets.
AARP recognizes that Treasury and the IRS must balance administrative simplicity, verification requirements, and program integrity. Nevertheless, we encourage the agencies to examine opportunities to streamline the process wherever possible. As Treasury develops regulations and related administrative procedures, it should seek to minimize avoidable delays and provide clear expectations regarding when participants can expect to receive matching contributions. Transparent communication will help participants understand the program and maintain confidence that they will receive the benefit for which they are eligible.
In addition, participant communications should clearly explain each step in the process, including when eligibility is determined, when matching contributions are calculated, and when funds are expected to be deposited into the designated retirement account. Providing understandable timelines and status information can help reduce confusion and improve public confidence in the program. Such communications may be particularly important during the initial years of implementation, when many participants will be unfamiliar with how the Saver's Match operates.
Provide Clear Guidance for Workers With Fluctuating Incomes
AARP supports Treasury's efforts to ensure that the Saver's Match is accessible and understandable for the workers it is intended to benefit. As Treasury develops final regulations and consumer-facing materials, special attention should be paid to individuals whose incomes fluctuate from year to year and who may move in and out of eligibility for the Saver's Match. This group includes many part-time workers, workers with seasonal employment, individuals with irregular work schedules, and people transitioning into or out of the workforce.
Income volatility may be especially relevant for older workers transitioning toward retirement. Many individuals in their 50s and 60s experience changes in work hours, caregiving responsibilities, or employment status that can affect annual income and eligibility for the Saver's Match. Clear guidance will help these workers continue saving with confidence despite year-to-year fluctuations in earnings.
Because eligibility for the Saver's Match is tied to income, some workers may be uncertain whether they will qualify for the benefit when deciding whether to contribute to a retirement account. An individual may be eligible one year but not the next, or may qualify for a reduced match because of a modest increase in earnings. Without clear explanations, these changes may create confusion or discourage participation among workers who could otherwise benefit from the program.
Treasury and the IRS should therefore develop simple, plain-language materials that explain eligibility rules, income thresholds, and phase-out provisions. Taxpayers should be able to easily determine whether they are likely to qualify and understand why the amount of a matching contribution may differ from year to year. Consumer tools, examples, and frequently asked questions could help taxpayers understand common situations, including changes in earnings, marital status, or filing status that may affect eligibility.
Consumer Education and Outreach
AARP strongly encourages Treasury and the IRS to prioritize consumer education and outreach as part of the implementation of the Saver's Match. The Saver's Match has the potential to significantly increase retirement savings among lower- and moderate-income Americans, but its success will ultimately depend on whether eligible individuals know the benefit exists, understand how it works, and are able to take the steps necessary to receive it. Past experience with the Saver's Credit demonstrates that even well-designed savings incentives can have limited impact when public awareness is low. A robust education strategy will therefore be essential to ensuring that Congress's goals are realized.
Treasury and the IRS should develop clear, plain-language educational materials that explain who is eligible for the Saver's Match, how the matching contribution is calculated, when contributions will be paid, and what steps individuals must take to claim the benefit. These materials should be written for consumers rather than tax professionals and should be made available through a variety of channels, including tax preparation software, retirement plan providers, financial institutions, employers, state-facilitated retirement savings programs, and community-based organizations.
Treasury and the IRS should also recognize that older workers may have unique information needs. Individuals nearing retirement may be making important decisions about retirement readiness, part-time work, caregiving responsibilities, or delayed retirement. Outreach materials should therefore be designed to help older workers understand how the Saver's Match can support their retirement goals and encourage continued participation in retirement savings vehicles.
AARP also encourages Treasury and the IRS to establish formal partnerships with trusted consumer organizations like AARP, retirement security advocates, aging organizations, financial counseling providers, and other community stakeholders. These organizations often have direct relationships with the populations most likely to benefit from the Saver's Match and can help reach workers who may not receive information through traditional financial services channels. Partnerships with consumer groups can also help ensure that educational materials are understandable, accessible, and responsive to the needs of diverse populations, including first-time savers, lower-income workers, older workers, and individuals with limited financial literacy. AARP would welcome the opportunity to work with Treasury and the IRS on outreach and public-awareness efforts to help ensure that eligible Americans understand and take advantage of the Saver's Match.
Such outreach will be particularly important during the first years of implementation. Many eligible Americans have never heard of the Saver's Match and may not understand how it differs from the Saver's Credit it replaces. Coordinated public-awareness efforts can help explain the value of the new incentive and reinforce a simple message: when eligible workers save for retirement, the federal government may contribute additional funds directly to their retirement account. Communicating this message clearly and consistently will help encourage participation and strengthen confidence in the program.
Conclusion
AARP appreciates the opportunity to comment and supports Treasury's and the IRS's efforts to implement the Saver's Match in a manner that expands retirement savings opportunities for lower- and moderate-income Americans. The Saver's Match has the potential to become a transformative retirement savings incentive, particularly for workers who have historically faced barriers to workplace retirement coverage and long-term saving. AARP looks forward to continued engagement on implementation of the Saver's Match and would welcome the opportunity to serve as a resource as Treasury and the IRS develop proposed regulations and consumer education materials. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or have your staff contact Clark Flynt-Barr of AARP's Government Affairs team at cflyntbarr@aarp.org.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Jones
Vice President, Financial Security and Livable Communities
AARP
2
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/IRS-2026-0826-0009
September 24, 2026
The Honorable Frank J. Bisignano
Chief Executive Officer
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224
Re: Notice of Intent to Issue Regulations with Respect to Saver's Match Contributions Notice 2026-48
Dear The Honorable Frank J. Bisignano:
AARP, which advocates for the 125 million Americans age 50 and older, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Internal Revenue ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. September 24, 2026 The Honorable Frank J. Bisignano Chief Executive Officer Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20224 Re: Notice of Intent to Issue Regulations with Respect to Saver's Match Contributions Notice 2026-48 Dear The Honorable Frank J. Bisignano: AARP, which advocates for the 125 million Americans age 50 and older, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Internal RevenueService's "Notice of Intent to Issue Regulations with Respect to Saver's Match Contributions Notice" regarding implementation of the Saver's Match. AARP strongly supported creating the Saver's Match during consideration of the SECURE 2.0 Act because it represents a significant improvement over the Saver's Credit and could help millions of lower- and moderate-income Americans build greater financial security in retirement.
AARP's support for the Saver's Match is grounded in decades of work to improve retirement security and expand access to workplace savings opportunities. AARP research has consistently found that millions of workers lack access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan, making it much harder for them to save for retirement. The retirement savings gap remains one of the most significant financial challenges facing older Americans. Workers who have access to a payroll deduction savings program are significantly more likely to save for retirement than those who are forced to find a separate savings plan. As a result, AARP has long advocated for policies that make saving easier, more automatic, and more accessible for workers at every income level.
In addition to supporting the Saver's Match, AARP has been a leading advocate for state-facilitated retirement savings programs designed to help workers whose employers do not offer retirement plans. These programs are beginning to demonstrate meaningful success in expanding retirement savings opportunities to millions of Americans who previously lacked access to a workplace savings vehicle. The Saver's Match could build on that progress by providing an additional incentive for workers participating in these programs and other retirement savings arrangements. If implemented effectively, the Saver's Match can help narrow the retirement savings gap, increase participation in retirement plans and IRAs, and improve long-term financial security for millions of Americans.
The Saver's Match may be particularly valuable for older workers nearing retirement who have limited time left to build retirement savings. AARP's research has found that many Americans approach retirement with inadequate savings and that workers without access to workplace retirement plans often face significant challenges accumulating assets. For these individuals, the Saver's Match can provide an important incentive to begin saving, increase contributions, and strengthen financial security in the years leading up to retirement.
For the Saver's Match to achieve these goals, however, implementation must be guided by principles of simplicity, accessibility, and consumer understanding. A program that is difficult to navigate or burdensome to claim risks missing many of the individuals Congress intended to benefit. Accordingly, AARP urges Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service to adopt policies that maximize participation, minimize administrative barriers, and ensure that eligible savers can easily receive and retain the full benefit of the Saver's Match.
The Success of Saver's Match Depends on Simplicity
AARP strongly believes that the success of the Saver's Match will depend on whether eligible individuals can easily claim and receive the benefit. The Saver's Match has the potential to become one of the most significant retirement savings incentives available to lower- and moderate-income workers. A complicated claiming process could shut out the very people Congress meant the Saver's Match to help.
Many eligible individuals have limited experience with retirement savings incentives and may be unfamiliar with complex tax or financial concepts. The claiming process should therefore be designed so that taxpayers are not required to gather extensive account information, navigate multiple forms, or undertake additional procedural steps beyond those necessary to file a tax return and verify an eligible contribution. Wherever possible, Treasury and the IRS should automate the process and rely on information already available through existing tax and retirement-plan reporting systems rather than requiring savers to provide duplicative information.
Treasury should also ensure that the claiming process works seamlessly for participants in a broad range of retirement savings arrangements, including state-facilitated retirement savings programs. Clear, consistent procedures across retirement savings vehicles will help reduce confusion and increase participation. In addition, Treasury should provide plain-language consumer guidance explaining eligibility requirements, the claiming process, and the expected timeline for receipt of the matching contribution. These materials should be understandable to individuals with limited financial expertise and available through multiple channels, including tax preparation software, retirement-plan providers, and state savings programs.
Ensure Coordination with State-Facilitated Retirement Savings Programs
AARP strongly supports efforts to expand access to retirement savings opportunities for workers who lack access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan. For more than a decade, AARP has advocated for state-facilitated retirement savings programs as one solution to the nation's significant retirement coverage gap and has worked with policymakers across the country to expand access to workplace savings options. Today, millions of workers have access to state-facilitated retirement savings programs, and these programs have become an increasingly important component of the retirement savings system.
The Saver's Match could significantly strengthen the retirement security benefits these programs provide. Many participants in state-facilitated retirement programs are moderate- and lower-income workers who are precisely the population Congress sought to assist through the Saver's Match. For these workers, the combination of automatic payroll deduction and a federal matching contribution has the potential to substantially increase both participation and account balances over time. Expanding access to the Saver's Match through state-facilitated retirement savings programs could be particularly beneficial for older workers who have spent much of their careers without access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan and have fewer remaining years to build retirement savings.
Because most state programs use Roth IRAs as the default savings vehicle, Treasury and the IRS should provide clear guidance regarding how Saver's Match contributions will be claimed, calculated, and deposited for participants in these arrangements. We are pleased that Treasury recognizes that a mechanism was needed to convert the Saver's Match into a Roth contribution, but the result should not leave the account owner with a higher tax liability. In addition, any uncertainty regarding reporting requirements, account verification, eligibility determinations, or payment procedures could create unnecessary barriers to participation and reduce the effectiveness of the program. Participants in state-facilitated retirement savings programs should be able to access the Saver's Match as easily as workers participating in employer-sponsored retirement plans.
Treasury should also coordinate closely with states and program administrators to minimize administrative burdens and ensure that existing reporting systems can be leveraged whenever possible. Many participants in these programs are first-time savers and may have limited familiarity with retirement plan rules. As a result, additional paperwork, separate enrollment processes, or complex account designation requirements could discourage participation or result in eligible individuals failing to receive the matching contribution. Treasury should instead seek to make the interaction between state retirement programs and the Saver's Match as seamless as possible.
AARP believes that successful implementation of the Saver's Match within state-facilitated retirement savings programs could substantially improve retirement preparedness for millions of workers who currently have limited access to workplace retirement plans. The final regulations should ensure that participants in these programs are fully able to benefit from the Saver's Match and that administrative requirements do not undermine the accessibility that has made these programs successful.
Reduce Delays Between Contribution and Receipt of the Match
AARP supports Treasury's efforts to implement the Saver's Match in a manner that promotes retirement savings among lower- and moderate-income Americans. Treasury and the IRS should minimize the delay between a retirement contribution and receipt of the Saver's Match. A prompt match will make the benefit more visible and reinforce the value of saving.
Many eligible savers live on tight budgets and make difficult choices about whether they can afford to set aside money for retirement. For these individuals, the Saver's Match is intended to reinforce the benefits of saving and encourage continued participation in retirement plans and IRAs. However, if participants must wait extended periods before seeing the federal contribution reflected in their accounts, the incentive value of the match may be diminished. A saver who contributes but does not receive the matching contribution until much later may be less likely to associate the reward with the original saving behavior. This risk is particularly acute for first-time savers and workers with limited financial assets.
AARP recognizes that Treasury and the IRS must balance administrative simplicity, verification requirements, and program integrity. Nevertheless, we encourage the agencies to examine opportunities to streamline the process wherever possible. As Treasury develops regulations and related administrative procedures, it should seek to minimize avoidable delays and provide clear expectations regarding when participants can expect to receive matching contributions. Transparent communication will help participants understand the program and maintain confidence that they will receive the benefit for which they are eligible.
In addition, participant communications should clearly explain each step in the process, including when eligibility is determined, when matching contributions are calculated, and when funds are expected to be deposited into the designated retirement account. Providing understandable timelines and status information can help reduce confusion and improve public confidence in the program. Such communications may be particularly important during the initial years of implementation, when many participants will be unfamiliar with how the Saver's Match operates.
Provide Clear Guidance for Workers With Fluctuating Incomes
AARP supports Treasury's efforts to ensure that the Saver's Match is accessible and understandable for the workers it is intended to benefit. As Treasury develops final regulations and consumer-facing materials, special attention should be paid to individuals whose incomes fluctuate from year to year and who may move in and out of eligibility for the Saver's Match. This group includes many part-time workers, workers with seasonal employment, individuals with irregular work schedules, and people transitioning into or out of the workforce.
Income volatility may be especially relevant for older workers transitioning toward retirement. Many individuals in their 50s and 60s experience changes in work hours, caregiving responsibilities, or employment status that can affect annual income and eligibility for the Saver's Match. Clear guidance will help these workers continue saving with confidence despite year-to-year fluctuations in earnings.
Because eligibility for the Saver's Match is tied to income, some workers may be uncertain whether they will qualify for the benefit when deciding whether to contribute to a retirement account. An individual may be eligible one year but not the next, or may qualify for a reduced match because of a modest increase in earnings. Without clear explanations, these changes may create confusion or discourage participation among workers who could otherwise benefit from the program.
Treasury and the IRS should therefore develop simple, plain-language materials that explain eligibility rules, income thresholds, and phase-out provisions. Taxpayers should be able to easily determine whether they are likely to qualify and understand why the amount of a matching contribution may differ from year to year. Consumer tools, examples, and frequently asked questions could help taxpayers understand common situations, including changes in earnings, marital status, or filing status that may affect eligibility.
Consumer Education and Outreach
AARP strongly encourages Treasury and the IRS to prioritize consumer education and outreach as part of the implementation of the Saver's Match. The Saver's Match has the potential to significantly increase retirement savings among lower- and moderate-income Americans, but its success will ultimately depend on whether eligible individuals know the benefit exists, understand how it works, and are able to take the steps necessary to receive it. Past experience with the Saver's Credit demonstrates that even well-designed savings incentives can have limited impact when public awareness is low. A robust education strategy will therefore be essential to ensuring that Congress's goals are realized.
Treasury and the IRS should develop clear, plain-language educational materials that explain who is eligible for the Saver's Match, how the matching contribution is calculated, when contributions will be paid, and what steps individuals must take to claim the benefit. These materials should be written for consumers rather than tax professionals and should be made available through a variety of channels, including tax preparation software, retirement plan providers, financial institutions, employers, state-facilitated retirement savings programs, and community-based organizations.
Treasury and the IRS should also recognize that older workers may have unique information needs. Individuals nearing retirement may be making important decisions about retirement readiness, part-time work, caregiving responsibilities, or delayed retirement. Outreach materials should therefore be designed to help older workers understand how the Saver's Match can support their retirement goals and encourage continued participation in retirement savings vehicles.
AARP also encourages Treasury and the IRS to establish formal partnerships with trusted consumer organizations like AARP, retirement security advocates, aging organizations, financial counseling providers, and other community stakeholders. These organizations often have direct relationships with the populations most likely to benefit from the Saver's Match and can help reach workers who may not receive information through traditional financial services channels. Partnerships with consumer groups can also help ensure that educational materials are understandable, accessible, and responsive to the needs of diverse populations, including first-time savers, lower-income workers, older workers, and individuals with limited financial literacy. AARP would welcome the opportunity to work with Treasury and the IRS on outreach and public-awareness efforts to help ensure that eligible Americans understand and take advantage of the Saver's Match.
Such outreach will be particularly important during the first years of implementation. Many eligible Americans have never heard of the Saver's Match and may not understand how it differs from the Saver's Credit it replaces. Coordinated public-awareness efforts can help explain the value of the new incentive and reinforce a simple message: when eligible workers save for retirement, the federal government may contribute additional funds directly to their retirement account. Communicating this message clearly and consistently will help encourage participation and strengthen confidence in the program.
Conclusion
AARP appreciates the opportunity to comment and supports Treasury's and the IRS's efforts to implement the Saver's Match in a manner that expands retirement savings opportunities for lower- and moderate-income Americans. The Saver's Match has the potential to become a transformative retirement savings incentive, particularly for workers who have historically faced barriers to workplace retirement coverage and long-term saving. AARP looks forward to continued engagement on implementation of the Saver's Match and would welcome the opportunity to serve as a resource as Treasury and the IRS develop proposed regulations and consumer education materials. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or have your staff contact Clark Flynt-Barr of AARP's Government Affairs team at cflyntbarr@aarp.org.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Jones
Vice President, Financial Security and Livable Communities
AARP
2
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/IRS-2026-0826-0009
3 Organizations Seek 60-Day Extension to Review Census Proposal
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
September 25, 2026
The Honorable Howard Lutnick
Secretary
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230
Re: 60-Day Extension Request for Response to Federal Register Notice 2026-18481, Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions
The undersigned organizations representing metropolitan planning organizations, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. September 25, 2026 The Honorable Howard Lutnick Secretary U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 Re: 60-Day Extension Request for Response to Federal Register Notice 2026-18481, Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions The undersigned organizations representing metropolitan planning organizations,regional planning organizations, and regional/rural development organizations across the United States, respectfully request a 60-day extension through December 12, 2026, of the public comment period for the Census Bureau's proposed rule, Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions (Federal Register Notice 2026-18481). The current comment period closes on October 13, 2026. The proposed rule addresses important aspects of the decennial census, including residence criteria used to determine how individuals are counted and regulations governing certain demographic questions included on the decennial census questionnaire. Given the importance of Census data across a wide range of federal, state, regional, and local programs, additional time would allow stakeholders to review the proposal and assess its administrative and programmatic implications.
State and local governments and regional organizations rely on Census data for a broad range of planning, funding, and service-delivery purposes. Population and demographic data can inform eligibility for and distribution of federal formula funding and competitive grant programs, including program eligibility thresholds, measures of need, demographic and socioeconomic criteria, and other factors used in federal funding decisions. Census data also supports infrastructure investment, housing and community development, economic development, public health, emergency management, and other essential government functions.
Transportation programs illustrate this reliance in more detail. Census data informs federal transportation planning and funding processes, including metropolitan planning organization designations, transportation management area thresholds, funding distributions and suballocations, transit and other formula programs, competitive grant applications, and long-range regional planning. Because these data are used across multiple programs and levels of government, stakeholders would benefit from more time to assess how the proposed changes could affect existing planning, funding, and administrative processes.
A 60-day extension would allow state, local, and regional organizations to coordinate with our members and partners, review the proposal across relevant program areas, and provide the Department of Census Bureau with thoughtful, well-informed feedback on implementation and practical considerations.
We appreciate the Department and Census Bureau's consideration of this request and the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
Respectfully,
Bill Keyrouze
Executive Director
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Joe McKinney
Executive Director
National Association of Development Organizations
Erich Zimmermann
Executive Director
National Association of Regional Councils
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USBC-2026-0628-9724
September 25, 2026
The Honorable Howard Lutnick
Secretary
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230
Re: 60-Day Extension Request for Response to Federal Register Notice 2026-18481, Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions
The undersigned organizations representing metropolitan planning organizations, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. September 25, 2026 The Honorable Howard Lutnick Secretary U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 Re: 60-Day Extension Request for Response to Federal Register Notice 2026-18481, Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions The undersigned organizations representing metropolitan planning organizations,regional planning organizations, and regional/rural development organizations across the United States, respectfully request a 60-day extension through December 12, 2026, of the public comment period for the Census Bureau's proposed rule, Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions (Federal Register Notice 2026-18481). The current comment period closes on October 13, 2026. The proposed rule addresses important aspects of the decennial census, including residence criteria used to determine how individuals are counted and regulations governing certain demographic questions included on the decennial census questionnaire. Given the importance of Census data across a wide range of federal, state, regional, and local programs, additional time would allow stakeholders to review the proposal and assess its administrative and programmatic implications.
State and local governments and regional organizations rely on Census data for a broad range of planning, funding, and service-delivery purposes. Population and demographic data can inform eligibility for and distribution of federal formula funding and competitive grant programs, including program eligibility thresholds, measures of need, demographic and socioeconomic criteria, and other factors used in federal funding decisions. Census data also supports infrastructure investment, housing and community development, economic development, public health, emergency management, and other essential government functions.
Transportation programs illustrate this reliance in more detail. Census data informs federal transportation planning and funding processes, including metropolitan planning organization designations, transportation management area thresholds, funding distributions and suballocations, transit and other formula programs, competitive grant applications, and long-range regional planning. Because these data are used across multiple programs and levels of government, stakeholders would benefit from more time to assess how the proposed changes could affect existing planning, funding, and administrative processes.
A 60-day extension would allow state, local, and regional organizations to coordinate with our members and partners, review the proposal across relevant program areas, and provide the Department of Census Bureau with thoughtful, well-informed feedback on implementation and practical considerations.
We appreciate the Department and Census Bureau's consideration of this request and the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
Respectfully,
Bill Keyrouze
Executive Director
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Joe McKinney
Executive Director
National Association of Development Organizations
Erich Zimmermann
Executive Director
National Association of Regional Councils
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/USBC-2026-0628-9724
26 Civil Rights Groups Urges FTC to Ban Surveillance Pricing Under Section 5 Authority
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site.
September 25, 2026
Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC, 20580
Re: Federal Trade Commission's Proposed Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing
The undersigned civil rights advocacy and civil society organizations appreciate the opportunity to submit comments in response to the Federal Trade Commission's August 19, 2026 Request for Comment ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. September 25, 2026 Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC, 20580 Re: Federal Trade Commission's Proposed Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing The undersigned civil rights advocacy and civil society organizations appreciate the opportunity to submit comments in response to the Federal Trade Commission's August 19, 2026 Request for Comment(RFC) on Personalized Pricing. We commend the Commission for seeking input on this important topic and hope our comments below will help inform the Commission's views. We share the Commission's concerns around surveillance pricing particularly on the grounds of unfairness, deception, and anticompetitive behavior. Like the Commission, our organizations have also expressed significant concern over the data collection and use practices of the technology industry. Because of their potential for harm, we urge the Commission to consider prohibiting or greatly limiting the practice altogether.
Despite the Commission's insistence otherwise in the proposed enforcement policy, the Commission already has the authority clearly mandated in Section 5 of the FTC Act to prohibit surveillance pricing outright through Unfairness authority and by vigorous enforcement of unlawful discriminatory pricing outcomes through the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) rather than relying solely on disclosure-based remedies. The Commission's proposed policy recognizes that using personal data to set "personalized" surveillance pricing without adequate disclosure may violate Section 5's prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices. Likewise, surveillance pricing may be unfair even if disclosed. As the Commission itself notes, charging more to homebound individuals, families with children, or people going to funerals can cause harm. As such, Section 5 authority remains available for the Commission to take action to prohibit those unfair practices, even if it chooses not to exercise that authority. At the same time, we think it is important to flag the tension between the Commission's stated interest in addressing surveillance pricing harms and its recent retreat from discriminatory pricing outcomes that the FTC has traditionally enforced through ECOA. These are some of the most effective mechanisms for actually reaching those harms, and they result in remedial practices that result in fairer prices for all consumers, not just consumers of a specific race or ethnicity.
I. The FTC should prohibit surveillance pricing outright
We urge the Commission to consider using its authority to prohibit surveillance pricing as the practice is deceptive, harms consumers directly, and carries compounding risks across civil rights, privacy, competition, and economic policy. It risks discrimination because the personal data used to set individualized prices often correlates closely with protected characteristics. It creates privacy harms, rewarding firms that collect and retain as much data on consumers as they can obtain. It is anticompetitive, advantaging firms with the most sophisticated surveillance tools and enabling them to extract more data from every transaction, further pushing out competitors. And it reduces consumer surplus, transferring value in the form of profit from households to sellers.
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and data collection are accelerating each of these harms, making surveillance pricing more precise and harder for consumers and regulators alike to detect. States have recognized the threat and are taking action. New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, and New York have already enacted prohibitions or disclosure requirements, with bills proposed in states such as California and Colorado. The Commission has also recognized these harms and thus should use its authority to act to protect consumers.
Surveillance pricing is growing across industries. The Commission's own report on surveillance pricing indicates that surveillance pricing is becoming more ubiquitous, appearing in grocery stores, apparel retailers, home goods and furnishing stores, convenience stores, building and hardware stores, and other retailers. Across industries, companies are using the massive amounts of personal data they collect from individuals and families to set prices for goods and services based on people's behaviors and vulnerabilities. The findings suggest that surveillance pricing, enabled by continued massive data-collection efforts combined with the computing power of AI, is often used not to provide lower costs to individuals; instead, surveillance pricing is being used to charge the highest price an individual is willing to pay based on their circumstances.
The implications of the data collected, amassed, combined, and in some cases used to make predictions, have wide impact. Like surveillance pricing, companies are using data about their workers to use AI to set their employees' wages. And like surveillance pricing, using AI to set wages can lead to harm-suppressing those wages and leading to unpredictable pay and worker manipulation. Surveillance pricing leads to discrimination. The Commission's statement correctly identifies surveillance pricing as an unfair and deceptive act and correctly warns that data revealing consumers' identities, locations, credit histories, medical conditions, sexual interests, and religious and political views may be used to set individualized prices. In many cases, the harm will not announce itself that way; rather, it will occur via a proxy. Because the data feeding personalized pricing correlates closely with protected characteristics and with financial precarity, these systems can reproduce and widen existing disparities without ever indexing a prohibited category directly. Companies already collect sensitive data that can be used as proxies for protected categories, including location, demographic data, biometric data, and personal device data.
Charging one consumer more than another because of a protected characteristic such as race or sex is plainly discriminatory under ECOA. In the case of credit, this can occur when two consumers of different races have equivalent creditworthiness profiles but are charged different prices without justification. Notably, the FTC has recently abandoned existing cases where this has been found. While the FTC has asserted that these matters relied solely on disparate impact theory, review of the cases reveals that they actually articulate both disparate treatment and disparate impact as potential legal theories, and fall squarely within traditional disparate treatment-based pricing discrimination enforcement. The remedies in these cases benefit consumers of all races through the improved compliance policies and fairer pricing structures implemented, not just consumers of a specific race or ethnicity.
Vulnerable communities may be the most impacted by surveillance pricing. This may be due to a combination of economic, social, and technological factors that result in furthering existing inequalities. A report by AI Now and others supports the conclusion that surveillance prices and wages can exacerbate systemic discrimination. In making the case for prohibiting surveillance pricing and wages outright, AI Now notes that "algorithms often rely on data that reflect historical and ongoing biases, embedding these prejudices into wage- and price-setting systems and perpetuating them." AI Now is not alone: Consumer Reports has also advocated for bans on surveillance pricing, citing abuses and the need to protect individuals and families from opaque, data-driven price discrimination.
Racial Discrimination. Algorithms can reflect social, economic, and other patterns that could result in higher prices for marginalized populations. For example, women, the elderly, and communities of color might pay more for identical products or services based solely on consumer data patterns like zip codes, purchasing history, or other factors that can act as proxies for race or social/economic status and lead to unfair pricing. This result creates a form of digital redlining, a type of like past discriminatory practices that was banned years ago. A study of 100 million ridehailing samples from the city of Chicago found that fare pricing of neighborhoods with larger non-white populations was significantly higher. Surveillance pricing algorithms designed to determine an individual's willingness to pay using detailed personal data, like income, location, spending patterns, and the like, may assume that some households may be able to tolerate slightly higher prices for essential goods and services.
Discrimination against low-income households: Consumer Reports has found that surveillance pricing can increase costs for consumers without benefit and undermines transparency in pricing thus restricting an individual's ability to make informed choices. The impact of surveillance pricing on vulnerable communities leads to the conclusion that the use of these tools is not about market efficiency, but rather about optimizing for a company's bottom line in ways that result in predatory behavior that exploits people's vulnerabilities, socioeconomic status, and technological capabilities. Discrimination against working families. The AFL-CIO found that "for working families, already stretched thin, [surveillance pricing] can mean paying hundreds or even thousands more each year for the same products and services as someone else." They noted that surveillance pricing both "penalizes urgency" and "deepens inequality." If someone needs a flight to help a sick loved one, or if a parent is shopping late at night for items for their newborn, an algorithm "may interpret that behavior as desperation-and increase the cost." Likewise, working families may not have time to "comparison shop, use privacy protections, and navigate around price manipulation" like wealthier consumers.
Personalized pricing carries competitive risk. We urge the Commission to acknowledge the role that AI plays in the increased sophistication of surveillance pricing. The Commission's statement observes that perfect personalized pricing, absent competition, would allow a monopolist to capture the entire consumer surplus, and the research the statement cites notes that access to data for personalized pricing can raise entry barriers and give rise to abuse-of-dominance concerns. AI is making these theoretical concerns a reality: firms with the most sophisticated AI tools will be best positioned to use surveillance pricing to capture profit. The result risks a self-reinforcing dynamic in which market success accrues to the firms most adept at extracting consumer data and using it to extract consumer surplus, rewarding data accumulation rather than better products, lower prices, or genuine innovation. As the Commission's own sources find, consumers can be worse off when only some firms in a market can personalize than when all or none do.
II. Transparency is necessary but more enforceable protections are needed.
While the Commission is right to look to a transparency requirement as a safeguard, disclosures alone-telling an individual that surveillance pricing is occurring-fail to address the underlying mechanisms and harms caused by the practice. AI often operates in "black boxes," so even if there is awareness that an individual's data may drive different pricing, the company itself may not fully understand or appreciate the parameters of how a price was set. This fundamental lack of information prevents individuals from being able to contest unfair outcomes or control inputs that may trigger higher costs. In other words, there may be insufficient information for an individual to challenge a decision or interrogate the factors used to make price determinations. Moreover, transparency alone will not empower an individual to negotiate or opt-out of an exploitive surveillance pricing scheme. Those belonging to marginalized communities lacking resources or who are less digitally savvy are particularly at risk of discrimination in surveillance pricing.
The most effective safeguard the Commission can take is to prohibit surveillance pricing altogether. Short of a ban, to protect individuals the Commission must adopt safeguards beyond transparency. There must be regulatory oversight, accountability mechanisms, and prohibitions against discriminatory pricing. In addition, any transparency requirement must be robust, going beyond simply disclosing that surveillance pricing is taking place. Like with insurance and credit decisions, individuals must be provided with reasons why a price was set, including the data points or other factors, predictions, or comparisons that were used. Individuals should also be provided with a mechanism to challenge a price. Unfortunately, even these safeguards will likely fall short because they place the burden on individuals to assess, question, or challenge decisions made by opaque algorithms run by some of the largest companies in the world.
III. The Commission's retreat from enforcement of rules preventing pricing discrimination undercuts its own stated goals. We note that insurance and credit are highly regulated industries in which risk-based price determinations have been vetted as a matter of public policy and are highly scrutinized and challenged. Those are distinguishable from surveillance pricing where decisions on the cost of a product or service are driven by a determination of how much an individual is willing to pay based on the personal data collected and analysed about that individual.
On August 7, 2026, the Commission announced that it would no longer pursue disparate-impact claims under the FTC Act, and repudiated its prior position that the unfairness prong of Section 5 independently supports discrimination claims. In the same month, the Commission issued this proposed Statement, whose own illustrative examples describe pricing that turns on factors pertaining to protected classes such as identity, religious views, and sexual orientation. We urge the Commission to consider the usefulness of discriminatory pricing enforcement as a tool for addressing surveillance pricing and other consumer harms. Discrimination satisfies the statutory definition of unfairness on its own terms. A practice is unfair under Section 5(n) of the FTC Act if it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, the injury is not reasonably avoidable, and the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. Surveillance pricing meets each element. The injury is monetary and concrete, consumers pay a higher price. Addressing surveillance pricing mechanisms is not a narrow intervention on behalf of a few; it is a useful tool for challenging unfair practices and ensuring the same price for everyone. Even if the Commission does not wish to utilize Unfairness authority to reach discriminatory pricing, its traditional enforcement of pricing discrimination through ECOA could achieve the same result.
At a moment when AI is making pricing systems more granular and more opaque, the Commission should be expanding the scope of its enforcement capacity, not narrowing it.
IV. Loyalty and rewards programs are a major, under-addressed vector for surveillance pricing.
Loyalty and rewards programs are a primary channel for extracting exorbitant amounts of personal data from customers and to engage in surveillance pricing. A recent report from Vanderbilt and UC Berkeley describes the result as the "wholesale transfer of wealth from consumers to corporations, with companies collecting ever-more data while offering ever-diminishing savings." A WIRED reporter received a 515-page file from McDonald's loyalty program containing algorithmic predictions of how often he would visit, how much he would spend per order, and how likely he was to stop being a customer. The Statement's own examples rest on inferences of exactly this kind: conclusions about a consumer's household, movements, and urgency drawn from data and converted into a prediction about what that consumer will pay. Pricing strategies that would raise concerns regarding Section 5 of the FTC Act at the point of sale should not fall outside the Commission's notice because the data was gathered and applied within a rewards program.
We urge the Commission to clarify that enrollment in a loyalty program does not constitute consent to surveillance pricing, and that the disclosure obligation attaches at both moments: at enrollment, that program data may be used to set the prices that loyalty program member personally pays, and at the point of sale, that the resulting price is personalized. The concern is not with discounts offered to all members on publicly disclosed terms, which consumers understand and can evaluate-it is with individualized pricing that a loyalty program makes possible and a membership card makes invisible.
Loyalty programs also create privacy harms that surface later as costs consumers never connect to enrollment. The data these programs generate does not stay with the retailer; it is often sold for profit to data brokers, and once it reaches parties with no role in delivering any program benefit, the consumer has no practical way to trace it or contest how it is used. The Texas Attorney General alleges that Allstate's subsidiary Arity embedded tracking software in mobile applications including the Fuel Rewards and GasBuddy rewards apps, collected and sold data on roughly 45 million Americans, and that insurers used it to justify raising premiums, denying coverage, and dropping coverage. A consumer who enrolls in a gas rewards program to save a few cents per gallon cannot anticipate that the resulting data may raise their auto insurance premium, cannot learn that the loyalty program was a cause of the harm, and cannot contest it. This bears directly on whether such injuries are reasonably avoidable under Section 5(n) of the FTC Act. It also raises deception concerns, since a consumer who enrolls to receive discounts is not told that the resulting data may travel to firms that will use it to set unrelated prices.
The Commission's authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act also examines impacts to competition. Loyalty programs let incumbents accumulate proprietary behavioral data and lock-in customers that smaller competitors cannot replicate, raising entry barriers, facilitating greater consumer surveillance, and dampening rivalry among competitors. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's review of customer loyalty schemes found that rewards programs designed to make exit costly reduce competition and over the long run such schemes can yield higher prices or lower quality, regardless of discounts they deliver in the meantime. Economic modeling reaches a similar conclusion: because these programs make stealing a rival's customers less profitable, they facilitate tacit collusion and firms become less likely to price competitively. The resulting higher prices are an injury consumers are unable to perceive because the relevant comparison is the price that would have prevailed in a market without loyalty programs, a price no member can observe.
The Commission should make clear that personalized pricing within loyalty and rewards programs are subject to the same disclosure requirements as any other form of personalized pricing, and that enrollment in such a program is not consent to the practice. Moreover, the Commission should note that loyalty programs may cause consumer injury cognizable under Section 5 of the FTC Act, and that where such programs foreclose competition, that conduct may warrant scrutiny under the Commission's competition authority as well.
V. The Commission should address personalized pricing through false "discounts."
The Commission should also confirm that personalization delivered as discounts, not only as price increases, can raise concerns regarding compliance with Section 5 of the FTC Act. The Statement's illustrative examples describe personalization as charging a consumer a higher price, but they do not identify the baseline against which "higher" is measured. A seller can deliver fully individualized pricing while maintaining that no consumer is charged above its posted price, and that therefore no harm is done and no disclosure is owed. The Statement should foreclose that reading.
The Commission has already recognized the problem elsewhere in the Statement, observing that consumers may be deceived when a personalized price presented as a discount is in fact a higher price derived from other data. We urge the Commission to carry that recognition into its examples and its unfairness analysis by stating that the relevant comparison is the net price a consumer pays relative to what other consumers pay for the same product at the same time, not the seller's own list price. Within this framing, a consumer who pays more than others for the same product or service as a result of personalized pricing may suffer substantial injury, whether that difference is imposed as an increased price or delivered as a purported discount offered to some consumers and withheld from others based on their personal information.
Finally, the Commission should note that a reference price maintained for the purpose of making personalized discounts appear larger than the savings they deliver is deceptive under its Guides Against Deceptive Pricing, 16 C.F.R. Part 233, which prohibits claims that create a false impression of savings.
VI. Insurance, housing, and rental markets deserve specific attention as high-risk areas.
Personalized pricing in regulated industries (e.g., housing, insurance, etc.) should be based on actual risk, not willingness to pay. There have been reports and settlements indicating insurers are improperly using WTP (Willingness to Pay) in their pricing. Additionally, in the rental housing market, where the factors that go into establishing rent pricing are largely kept from public view, dynamic pricing systems based on AI have become a widespread feature. Rent prices can change weekly, daily, or more frequently, based on any number of factors that are hidden from consumers, making it profoundly difficult for prospective tenants to understand why they are being charged a certain rate. ProPublica has reported that the company that produces the leading rental pricing software (RealPage) uses its clients' leasing data in pricing formation, which is believed to effectively cause rents to increase. Following this revelation, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that rental rates had increased 24% in the last three years and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in the anti-trust litigation against RealPage. This finding illustrates why disclosure alone does not address the harms of surveillance pricing, particularly in essential markets where higher prices have downstream effects on all consumers, not only a few.
VII. The Commission should require disclosures that consumers can act on.
As set out above, we do not believe disclosure is an adequate remedy. The recommendations in this and the following sections address how the Commission's disclosure standard should be improved if it proceeds on that basis. We support the Commission's articulation of what a personalized pricing disclosure should contain: the fact that the price is personalized, the basis of that personalization, and the type(s) of data used. We likewise support the Commission's recognition that a disclosure must include all relevant information and must give the consumer enough to identify potentially incorrect information, take measures to avoid the personalized price, or avoid future collection of data for that purpose. We urge the Commission to elaborate on what those requirements demand in practice in the Statement. Additionally, disclosure must also occur at the point of collection, prior to any action or decision on the part of the individual. Consumers who enroll in a loyalty program, make a purchase, or click through terms of service are almost never told that the data they are handing over may later determine the price they personally pay. Collection-time disclosure alerts consumers and provides them with the right to decline. It is not a substitute for pricing-time disclosure, and the standard should require both.
The following data elements would allow consumers to understand how their data is used and whether it is worth taking any of the steps the Commission describes:
1. A disclosure should also allow a consumer access to the sources of the data used, and in particular whether it includes data obtained from third parties.
2. A disclosure should identify the inferences drawn about the consumer that contributed to the price, not only the categories of data collected.
A disclosure should indicate how the personalized price relates to what other consumers pay. A disclosure that omits sources, inferences, and comparison leaves the consumer aware of the practice but unable to effectively act on it. The Statement's reliance on the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) supports this reading. FCRA does more than announce that a decision was individualized: it entitles the consumer to the underlying report and to dispute what is inaccurate.
Conclusion
The Commission must take action to address the harms of surveillance pricing beyond merely a simple, undefined, transparency requirement and instead prohibit the practice. By issuing a ban on surveillance pricing, the Commission will protect the most at-risk populations and ensure fairness in the marketplace.
Thank you for considering our views,
Sincerely,
National Fair Housing Alliance
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
TechEquity Action
Consumer Federation of America
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network
JustLeadershipUSA
Oakland Privacy
Kapor Center Advocacy
Courage California
Feminist Majority Foundation
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
Consumer Action
TechTonic Justice
Common Cause
Economic Security California
National Association of Consumer Advocates
MPower Change
United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry
The Greenlining Institute
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC
Dream.org
UnidosUS
Service Employees International Union
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2026-1057-3633
September 25, 2026
Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC, 20580
Re: Federal Trade Commission's Proposed Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing
The undersigned civil rights advocacy and civil society organizations appreciate the opportunity to submit comments in response to the Federal Trade Commission's August 19, 2026 Request for Comment ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 -- In response to a federal agency request for information, the following public comment letter was submitted electronically to the regulations.gov site. September 25, 2026 Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC, 20580 Re: Federal Trade Commission's Proposed Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing The undersigned civil rights advocacy and civil society organizations appreciate the opportunity to submit comments in response to the Federal Trade Commission's August 19, 2026 Request for Comment(RFC) on Personalized Pricing. We commend the Commission for seeking input on this important topic and hope our comments below will help inform the Commission's views. We share the Commission's concerns around surveillance pricing particularly on the grounds of unfairness, deception, and anticompetitive behavior. Like the Commission, our organizations have also expressed significant concern over the data collection and use practices of the technology industry. Because of their potential for harm, we urge the Commission to consider prohibiting or greatly limiting the practice altogether.
Despite the Commission's insistence otherwise in the proposed enforcement policy, the Commission already has the authority clearly mandated in Section 5 of the FTC Act to prohibit surveillance pricing outright through Unfairness authority and by vigorous enforcement of unlawful discriminatory pricing outcomes through the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) rather than relying solely on disclosure-based remedies. The Commission's proposed policy recognizes that using personal data to set "personalized" surveillance pricing without adequate disclosure may violate Section 5's prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices. Likewise, surveillance pricing may be unfair even if disclosed. As the Commission itself notes, charging more to homebound individuals, families with children, or people going to funerals can cause harm. As such, Section 5 authority remains available for the Commission to take action to prohibit those unfair practices, even if it chooses not to exercise that authority. At the same time, we think it is important to flag the tension between the Commission's stated interest in addressing surveillance pricing harms and its recent retreat from discriminatory pricing outcomes that the FTC has traditionally enforced through ECOA. These are some of the most effective mechanisms for actually reaching those harms, and they result in remedial practices that result in fairer prices for all consumers, not just consumers of a specific race or ethnicity.
I. The FTC should prohibit surveillance pricing outright
We urge the Commission to consider using its authority to prohibit surveillance pricing as the practice is deceptive, harms consumers directly, and carries compounding risks across civil rights, privacy, competition, and economic policy. It risks discrimination because the personal data used to set individualized prices often correlates closely with protected characteristics. It creates privacy harms, rewarding firms that collect and retain as much data on consumers as they can obtain. It is anticompetitive, advantaging firms with the most sophisticated surveillance tools and enabling them to extract more data from every transaction, further pushing out competitors. And it reduces consumer surplus, transferring value in the form of profit from households to sellers.
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and data collection are accelerating each of these harms, making surveillance pricing more precise and harder for consumers and regulators alike to detect. States have recognized the threat and are taking action. New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, and New York have already enacted prohibitions or disclosure requirements, with bills proposed in states such as California and Colorado. The Commission has also recognized these harms and thus should use its authority to act to protect consumers.
Surveillance pricing is growing across industries. The Commission's own report on surveillance pricing indicates that surveillance pricing is becoming more ubiquitous, appearing in grocery stores, apparel retailers, home goods and furnishing stores, convenience stores, building and hardware stores, and other retailers. Across industries, companies are using the massive amounts of personal data they collect from individuals and families to set prices for goods and services based on people's behaviors and vulnerabilities. The findings suggest that surveillance pricing, enabled by continued massive data-collection efforts combined with the computing power of AI, is often used not to provide lower costs to individuals; instead, surveillance pricing is being used to charge the highest price an individual is willing to pay based on their circumstances.
The implications of the data collected, amassed, combined, and in some cases used to make predictions, have wide impact. Like surveillance pricing, companies are using data about their workers to use AI to set their employees' wages. And like surveillance pricing, using AI to set wages can lead to harm-suppressing those wages and leading to unpredictable pay and worker manipulation. Surveillance pricing leads to discrimination. The Commission's statement correctly identifies surveillance pricing as an unfair and deceptive act and correctly warns that data revealing consumers' identities, locations, credit histories, medical conditions, sexual interests, and religious and political views may be used to set individualized prices. In many cases, the harm will not announce itself that way; rather, it will occur via a proxy. Because the data feeding personalized pricing correlates closely with protected characteristics and with financial precarity, these systems can reproduce and widen existing disparities without ever indexing a prohibited category directly. Companies already collect sensitive data that can be used as proxies for protected categories, including location, demographic data, biometric data, and personal device data.
Charging one consumer more than another because of a protected characteristic such as race or sex is plainly discriminatory under ECOA. In the case of credit, this can occur when two consumers of different races have equivalent creditworthiness profiles but are charged different prices without justification. Notably, the FTC has recently abandoned existing cases where this has been found. While the FTC has asserted that these matters relied solely on disparate impact theory, review of the cases reveals that they actually articulate both disparate treatment and disparate impact as potential legal theories, and fall squarely within traditional disparate treatment-based pricing discrimination enforcement. The remedies in these cases benefit consumers of all races through the improved compliance policies and fairer pricing structures implemented, not just consumers of a specific race or ethnicity.
Vulnerable communities may be the most impacted by surveillance pricing. This may be due to a combination of economic, social, and technological factors that result in furthering existing inequalities. A report by AI Now and others supports the conclusion that surveillance prices and wages can exacerbate systemic discrimination. In making the case for prohibiting surveillance pricing and wages outright, AI Now notes that "algorithms often rely on data that reflect historical and ongoing biases, embedding these prejudices into wage- and price-setting systems and perpetuating them." AI Now is not alone: Consumer Reports has also advocated for bans on surveillance pricing, citing abuses and the need to protect individuals and families from opaque, data-driven price discrimination.
Racial Discrimination. Algorithms can reflect social, economic, and other patterns that could result in higher prices for marginalized populations. For example, women, the elderly, and communities of color might pay more for identical products or services based solely on consumer data patterns like zip codes, purchasing history, or other factors that can act as proxies for race or social/economic status and lead to unfair pricing. This result creates a form of digital redlining, a type of like past discriminatory practices that was banned years ago. A study of 100 million ridehailing samples from the city of Chicago found that fare pricing of neighborhoods with larger non-white populations was significantly higher. Surveillance pricing algorithms designed to determine an individual's willingness to pay using detailed personal data, like income, location, spending patterns, and the like, may assume that some households may be able to tolerate slightly higher prices for essential goods and services.
Discrimination against low-income households: Consumer Reports has found that surveillance pricing can increase costs for consumers without benefit and undermines transparency in pricing thus restricting an individual's ability to make informed choices. The impact of surveillance pricing on vulnerable communities leads to the conclusion that the use of these tools is not about market efficiency, but rather about optimizing for a company's bottom line in ways that result in predatory behavior that exploits people's vulnerabilities, socioeconomic status, and technological capabilities. Discrimination against working families. The AFL-CIO found that "for working families, already stretched thin, [surveillance pricing] can mean paying hundreds or even thousands more each year for the same products and services as someone else." They noted that surveillance pricing both "penalizes urgency" and "deepens inequality." If someone needs a flight to help a sick loved one, or if a parent is shopping late at night for items for their newborn, an algorithm "may interpret that behavior as desperation-and increase the cost." Likewise, working families may not have time to "comparison shop, use privacy protections, and navigate around price manipulation" like wealthier consumers.
Personalized pricing carries competitive risk. We urge the Commission to acknowledge the role that AI plays in the increased sophistication of surveillance pricing. The Commission's statement observes that perfect personalized pricing, absent competition, would allow a monopolist to capture the entire consumer surplus, and the research the statement cites notes that access to data for personalized pricing can raise entry barriers and give rise to abuse-of-dominance concerns. AI is making these theoretical concerns a reality: firms with the most sophisticated AI tools will be best positioned to use surveillance pricing to capture profit. The result risks a self-reinforcing dynamic in which market success accrues to the firms most adept at extracting consumer data and using it to extract consumer surplus, rewarding data accumulation rather than better products, lower prices, or genuine innovation. As the Commission's own sources find, consumers can be worse off when only some firms in a market can personalize than when all or none do.
II. Transparency is necessary but more enforceable protections are needed.
While the Commission is right to look to a transparency requirement as a safeguard, disclosures alone-telling an individual that surveillance pricing is occurring-fail to address the underlying mechanisms and harms caused by the practice. AI often operates in "black boxes," so even if there is awareness that an individual's data may drive different pricing, the company itself may not fully understand or appreciate the parameters of how a price was set. This fundamental lack of information prevents individuals from being able to contest unfair outcomes or control inputs that may trigger higher costs. In other words, there may be insufficient information for an individual to challenge a decision or interrogate the factors used to make price determinations. Moreover, transparency alone will not empower an individual to negotiate or opt-out of an exploitive surveillance pricing scheme. Those belonging to marginalized communities lacking resources or who are less digitally savvy are particularly at risk of discrimination in surveillance pricing.
The most effective safeguard the Commission can take is to prohibit surveillance pricing altogether. Short of a ban, to protect individuals the Commission must adopt safeguards beyond transparency. There must be regulatory oversight, accountability mechanisms, and prohibitions against discriminatory pricing. In addition, any transparency requirement must be robust, going beyond simply disclosing that surveillance pricing is taking place. Like with insurance and credit decisions, individuals must be provided with reasons why a price was set, including the data points or other factors, predictions, or comparisons that were used. Individuals should also be provided with a mechanism to challenge a price. Unfortunately, even these safeguards will likely fall short because they place the burden on individuals to assess, question, or challenge decisions made by opaque algorithms run by some of the largest companies in the world.
III. The Commission's retreat from enforcement of rules preventing pricing discrimination undercuts its own stated goals. We note that insurance and credit are highly regulated industries in which risk-based price determinations have been vetted as a matter of public policy and are highly scrutinized and challenged. Those are distinguishable from surveillance pricing where decisions on the cost of a product or service are driven by a determination of how much an individual is willing to pay based on the personal data collected and analysed about that individual.
On August 7, 2026, the Commission announced that it would no longer pursue disparate-impact claims under the FTC Act, and repudiated its prior position that the unfairness prong of Section 5 independently supports discrimination claims. In the same month, the Commission issued this proposed Statement, whose own illustrative examples describe pricing that turns on factors pertaining to protected classes such as identity, religious views, and sexual orientation. We urge the Commission to consider the usefulness of discriminatory pricing enforcement as a tool for addressing surveillance pricing and other consumer harms. Discrimination satisfies the statutory definition of unfairness on its own terms. A practice is unfair under Section 5(n) of the FTC Act if it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, the injury is not reasonably avoidable, and the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. Surveillance pricing meets each element. The injury is monetary and concrete, consumers pay a higher price. Addressing surveillance pricing mechanisms is not a narrow intervention on behalf of a few; it is a useful tool for challenging unfair practices and ensuring the same price for everyone. Even if the Commission does not wish to utilize Unfairness authority to reach discriminatory pricing, its traditional enforcement of pricing discrimination through ECOA could achieve the same result.
At a moment when AI is making pricing systems more granular and more opaque, the Commission should be expanding the scope of its enforcement capacity, not narrowing it.
IV. Loyalty and rewards programs are a major, under-addressed vector for surveillance pricing.
Loyalty and rewards programs are a primary channel for extracting exorbitant amounts of personal data from customers and to engage in surveillance pricing. A recent report from Vanderbilt and UC Berkeley describes the result as the "wholesale transfer of wealth from consumers to corporations, with companies collecting ever-more data while offering ever-diminishing savings." A WIRED reporter received a 515-page file from McDonald's loyalty program containing algorithmic predictions of how often he would visit, how much he would spend per order, and how likely he was to stop being a customer. The Statement's own examples rest on inferences of exactly this kind: conclusions about a consumer's household, movements, and urgency drawn from data and converted into a prediction about what that consumer will pay. Pricing strategies that would raise concerns regarding Section 5 of the FTC Act at the point of sale should not fall outside the Commission's notice because the data was gathered and applied within a rewards program.
We urge the Commission to clarify that enrollment in a loyalty program does not constitute consent to surveillance pricing, and that the disclosure obligation attaches at both moments: at enrollment, that program data may be used to set the prices that loyalty program member personally pays, and at the point of sale, that the resulting price is personalized. The concern is not with discounts offered to all members on publicly disclosed terms, which consumers understand and can evaluate-it is with individualized pricing that a loyalty program makes possible and a membership card makes invisible.
Loyalty programs also create privacy harms that surface later as costs consumers never connect to enrollment. The data these programs generate does not stay with the retailer; it is often sold for profit to data brokers, and once it reaches parties with no role in delivering any program benefit, the consumer has no practical way to trace it or contest how it is used. The Texas Attorney General alleges that Allstate's subsidiary Arity embedded tracking software in mobile applications including the Fuel Rewards and GasBuddy rewards apps, collected and sold data on roughly 45 million Americans, and that insurers used it to justify raising premiums, denying coverage, and dropping coverage. A consumer who enrolls in a gas rewards program to save a few cents per gallon cannot anticipate that the resulting data may raise their auto insurance premium, cannot learn that the loyalty program was a cause of the harm, and cannot contest it. This bears directly on whether such injuries are reasonably avoidable under Section 5(n) of the FTC Act. It also raises deception concerns, since a consumer who enrolls to receive discounts is not told that the resulting data may travel to firms that will use it to set unrelated prices.
The Commission's authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act also examines impacts to competition. Loyalty programs let incumbents accumulate proprietary behavioral data and lock-in customers that smaller competitors cannot replicate, raising entry barriers, facilitating greater consumer surveillance, and dampening rivalry among competitors. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's review of customer loyalty schemes found that rewards programs designed to make exit costly reduce competition and over the long run such schemes can yield higher prices or lower quality, regardless of discounts they deliver in the meantime. Economic modeling reaches a similar conclusion: because these programs make stealing a rival's customers less profitable, they facilitate tacit collusion and firms become less likely to price competitively. The resulting higher prices are an injury consumers are unable to perceive because the relevant comparison is the price that would have prevailed in a market without loyalty programs, a price no member can observe.
The Commission should make clear that personalized pricing within loyalty and rewards programs are subject to the same disclosure requirements as any other form of personalized pricing, and that enrollment in such a program is not consent to the practice. Moreover, the Commission should note that loyalty programs may cause consumer injury cognizable under Section 5 of the FTC Act, and that where such programs foreclose competition, that conduct may warrant scrutiny under the Commission's competition authority as well.
V. The Commission should address personalized pricing through false "discounts."
The Commission should also confirm that personalization delivered as discounts, not only as price increases, can raise concerns regarding compliance with Section 5 of the FTC Act. The Statement's illustrative examples describe personalization as charging a consumer a higher price, but they do not identify the baseline against which "higher" is measured. A seller can deliver fully individualized pricing while maintaining that no consumer is charged above its posted price, and that therefore no harm is done and no disclosure is owed. The Statement should foreclose that reading.
The Commission has already recognized the problem elsewhere in the Statement, observing that consumers may be deceived when a personalized price presented as a discount is in fact a higher price derived from other data. We urge the Commission to carry that recognition into its examples and its unfairness analysis by stating that the relevant comparison is the net price a consumer pays relative to what other consumers pay for the same product at the same time, not the seller's own list price. Within this framing, a consumer who pays more than others for the same product or service as a result of personalized pricing may suffer substantial injury, whether that difference is imposed as an increased price or delivered as a purported discount offered to some consumers and withheld from others based on their personal information.
Finally, the Commission should note that a reference price maintained for the purpose of making personalized discounts appear larger than the savings they deliver is deceptive under its Guides Against Deceptive Pricing, 16 C.F.R. Part 233, which prohibits claims that create a false impression of savings.
VI. Insurance, housing, and rental markets deserve specific attention as high-risk areas.
Personalized pricing in regulated industries (e.g., housing, insurance, etc.) should be based on actual risk, not willingness to pay. There have been reports and settlements indicating insurers are improperly using WTP (Willingness to Pay) in their pricing. Additionally, in the rental housing market, where the factors that go into establishing rent pricing are largely kept from public view, dynamic pricing systems based on AI have become a widespread feature. Rent prices can change weekly, daily, or more frequently, based on any number of factors that are hidden from consumers, making it profoundly difficult for prospective tenants to understand why they are being charged a certain rate. ProPublica has reported that the company that produces the leading rental pricing software (RealPage) uses its clients' leasing data in pricing formation, which is believed to effectively cause rents to increase. Following this revelation, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that rental rates had increased 24% in the last three years and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in the anti-trust litigation against RealPage. This finding illustrates why disclosure alone does not address the harms of surveillance pricing, particularly in essential markets where higher prices have downstream effects on all consumers, not only a few.
VII. The Commission should require disclosures that consumers can act on.
As set out above, we do not believe disclosure is an adequate remedy. The recommendations in this and the following sections address how the Commission's disclosure standard should be improved if it proceeds on that basis. We support the Commission's articulation of what a personalized pricing disclosure should contain: the fact that the price is personalized, the basis of that personalization, and the type(s) of data used. We likewise support the Commission's recognition that a disclosure must include all relevant information and must give the consumer enough to identify potentially incorrect information, take measures to avoid the personalized price, or avoid future collection of data for that purpose. We urge the Commission to elaborate on what those requirements demand in practice in the Statement. Additionally, disclosure must also occur at the point of collection, prior to any action or decision on the part of the individual. Consumers who enroll in a loyalty program, make a purchase, or click through terms of service are almost never told that the data they are handing over may later determine the price they personally pay. Collection-time disclosure alerts consumers and provides them with the right to decline. It is not a substitute for pricing-time disclosure, and the standard should require both.
The following data elements would allow consumers to understand how their data is used and whether it is worth taking any of the steps the Commission describes:
1. A disclosure should also allow a consumer access to the sources of the data used, and in particular whether it includes data obtained from third parties.
2. A disclosure should identify the inferences drawn about the consumer that contributed to the price, not only the categories of data collected.
A disclosure should indicate how the personalized price relates to what other consumers pay. A disclosure that omits sources, inferences, and comparison leaves the consumer aware of the practice but unable to effectively act on it. The Statement's reliance on the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) supports this reading. FCRA does more than announce that a decision was individualized: it entitles the consumer to the underlying report and to dispute what is inaccurate.
Conclusion
The Commission must take action to address the harms of surveillance pricing beyond merely a simple, undefined, transparency requirement and instead prohibit the practice. By issuing a ban on surveillance pricing, the Commission will protect the most at-risk populations and ensure fairness in the marketplace.
Thank you for considering our views,
Sincerely,
National Fair Housing Alliance
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
TechEquity Action
Consumer Federation of America
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network
JustLeadershipUSA
Oakland Privacy
Kapor Center Advocacy
Courage California
Feminist Majority Foundation
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
Consumer Action
TechTonic Justice
Common Cause
Economic Security California
National Association of Consumer Advocates
MPower Change
United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry
The Greenlining Institute
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC
Dream.org
UnidosUS
Service Employees International Union
*
Original text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2026-1057-3633