Public Comments on Proposed Federal Rules
Here's a look at public comments on proposed Federal Register rules
Featured Stories
Ericsson Warns U.S. Agencies of Antitrust Risks in Licensing Negotiation Groups
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- Ericsson Inc., Stockholm, Sweden, a global provider of Information and Communication Technology, submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission expressing concerns over proposals to provide additional guidance on competitor collaborations, particularly focusing on Licensing Negotiation Groups. Ericsson questioned the viability and legality of LNGs in the context of standard essential patent licensing, urging careful antitrust scrutiny from federal regulators.
In its communication, Ericsson emphasized
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- Ericsson Inc., Stockholm, Sweden, a global provider of Information and Communication Technology, submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission expressing concerns over proposals to provide additional guidance on competitor collaborations, particularly focusing on Licensing Negotiation Groups. Ericsson questioned the viability and legality of LNGs in the context of standard essential patent licensing, urging careful antitrust scrutiny from federal regulators.
In its communication, Ericsson emphasizedits extensive investment in technological innovation, with more than six thousand employees in the United States and a global research and development budget close to five billion dollars in 2025. The company pointed to its long-standing presence in the U.S., including a major 5G infrastructure manufacturing facility in Texas and acknowledged leadership in mobile communication patents. Against this background, Ericsson framed its concerns within the Agencies' call for input on competitor collaborations intended to promote certainty and competition.
Ericsson systematically addressed the antitrust implications of LNGs, describing them as a novel concept with no established market track record or demonstrated procompetitive benefits. The company argued that LNGs resemble buyers' cartels, which are per se illegal under antitrust laws. By collectively negotiating licensing terms-especially royalty rates-LNG members, who often are direct market competitors, might exert monopsony power downstream, facilitating price fixing and competitive harm.
Beyond price fixing, the letter highlighted the risk of LNGs acting as mechanisms for collective holdout against patent owners. Such groups could delay or deny SEP licensing by allowing members to avoid bilateral negotiation commitments or to selectively accept parts of collectively negotiated agreements. This dynamic, Ericsson posited, undermines incentives for investing in innovation and standard development processes, which require considerable upfront research and capital.
The company further challenged claims that LNGs bring efficiencies comparable to joint purchasing agreements or patent pools. While joint purchasing typically involves tangible goods with binding commitments among participants, and patent pools aggregate complementary patents to reduce transaction costs, LNGs consist of competitors negotiating intellectual property licenses without binding outcomes. This structure, Ericsson noted, neither reduces transaction costs nor supports the licensing ecosystem efficiently. Moreover, LNGs involve the exchange of competitively sensitive information, raising additional antitrust flags.
Ericsson underscored that LNGs exacerbate power imbalances in SEP licensing unnecessarily, overlooking the existing protections for both patent owners and implementers under Standards Development Organization commitments and the FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) principles. The company described the SEP licensing environment as already balanced, with patent rights enforced through judicial mechanisms only after negotiations fail.
The letter referenced recent regulatory developments in Europe and the United Kingdom as cautionary examples. The European Commission's Technology Transfer Guidelines retracted earlier safe harbor provisions for LNGs in response to stakeholder concerns about their anticompetitive potential. Similarly, the UK Competition and Markets Authority declined to provide LNG-specific guidance, citing insufficient experience assessing such arrangements. The U.S. Office of the United States Trade Representative's 2026 Special 301 Report explicitly warned of LNGs' potential to enable anticompetitive practices, including sub-FRAND pricing and holdouts.
In light of these positions, Ericsson urged the DOJ and FTC to reject any antitrust safe harbor or guidance that would shield LNGs from scrutiny. Instead, it recommended case-by-case assessment and close examination of LNG activities to prevent market harm. The company cautioned that premature protection of LNGs could disrupt SEP licensing frameworks, hinder innovation incentives, and ultimately harm consumers.
Ericsson's comments call for rigorous enforcement against collaborative practices that risk undermining competitive licensing markets, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding innovation-driven industries through vigilant application of antitrust standards.
***
Read full text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ATR-2026-0001-0087
Harlan Strategies Urges DOJ and FTC to Provide Clear Antitrust Guidance on Standards Collaboration and SEP Licensing
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- Harlan Strategies LLC submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission addressing the gap in antitrust guidance following the December 2024 withdrawal of the Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors (Docket No. ATR-2026-0001). The letter highlights the absence of a surviving framework specifically for voluntary standards development and standards-essential patent licensing, urging the agencies to provide updated guidance that reflects empirical evidence and supports innovation through collaborative
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- Harlan Strategies LLC submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission addressing the gap in antitrust guidance following the December 2024 withdrawal of the Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors (Docket No. ATR-2026-0001). The letter highlights the absence of a surviving framework specifically for voluntary standards development and standards-essential patent licensing, urging the agencies to provide updated guidance that reflects empirical evidence and supports innovation through collaborativestandard-setting processes.
The withdrawal of the 2000 guidelines, decided by a 3-2 vote with dissent citing enforcement uncertainty, left companies navigating SEP licensing and competitor collaboration without clear regulatory direction. The prior guidelines, along with related intellectual property policy documents, no longer govern these complex arrangements. Harlan Strategies stresses that the inquiry poses a timely opportunity to reestablish guidance that anchors antitrust enforcement in current realities rather than outdated conjectures about SEP hold-up and licensing practices.
Harlan Strategies emphasizes that voluntary standards development organizations (SDOs) such as the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) have driven transformative innovation across multiple industries for decades. Drawing on data showing dramatic reductions in data costs, unprecedented growth in smartphone sales, and a decline in market concentration, the firm notes these outcomes are direct results of competitor collaboration within standards committees.
The comment explicitly states that the Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing framework is not an antitrust problem but rather the mechanism fostering innovation by encouraging contributions of leading technologies to open standards. Updated antitrust guidance should make this clear, reinforcing that well-structured patent pools and FRAND licensing frameworks are presumptively pro-competitive, with licensing disputes being ordinary commercial matters rather than antitrust violations.
The letter notes that despite ongoing regulatory debate since the late 1990s, empirical studies have not confirmed patent hold-up theories, with some findings indicating a substantial royalty gap due to under-compensation of SEP holders related to implementer holdout. The firm points to scholarship and real-world examples, such as the IEEE's experience following the 2015 Department of Justice Business Review Letter, which saw a marked decline in positive participation due to policy changes perceived as skewed toward implementers.
Furthermore, Harlan Strategies details that value-chain complexities in licensing, particularly relevant as standards penetrate automotive and other vertical industries, should not become tools for implementer delay. The firm calls for guidance that acknowledges these dynamics honestly, discouraging negotiation gamesmanship that hampers the FRAND framework's intended function.
The letter advocates for clear antitrust guidance that affirms low risk associated with good-faith standards participation and high expected pro-competitive benefits. It warns that uncertainty about patent enforcement rights or injunctive relief could reduce R&D investment, divert innovation away from standards-based solutions, and disproportionately harm small innovators and startups less equipped to endure protracted licensing disputes.
Harlan Strategies underscores that the economic impact of 5G-enabled applications has already exceeded one trillion dollars globally, with projected cumulative values reaching $18.2 trillion by 2035, according to Boston Consulting Group data prepared in collaboration with Qualcomm. These investments rely heavily on a regulatory environment that enables innovation through enforceable SEP licensing and collaborative technical progress.
The comment closes by urging the commission and division to seize the opportunity presented by the ongoing joint inquiry to fill the regulatory void left after 2024. Updated antitrust guidance, it argues, should affirm that the FRAND licensing framework and voluntary standards collaboration constitute a coherent pro-innovation policy, reducing uncertainty and supporting a vibrant innovation ecosystem that benefits consumers and the national economy alike.
***
The letter was signed by:
JAMES HARLAN
MANAGING MEMBER
HARLAN STRATEGIES LLC
***
URL: HARLAN STRATEGIES LLC
***
Read full text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ATR-2026-0001-0088
Cornucopia Institute Urges USDA to Limit Synthetic Inputs in Organic Standards
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Cornucopia Institute, Viroqua, Wisconsin, submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Organic Program addressing proposed changes to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under organic standards. The organization advocates for stricter regulations to emphasize preventive health management and minimize reliance on synthetic materials in organic agriculture consistent with its foundational principles (Docket No. AMS-NOP-22-0029).
Regarding the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) in crop production, Cornucopia supports limiting
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Cornucopia Institute, Viroqua, Wisconsin, submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Organic Program addressing proposed changes to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under organic standards. The organization advocates for stricter regulations to emphasize preventive health management and minimize reliance on synthetic materials in organic agriculture consistent with its foundational principles (Docket No. AMS-NOP-22-0029).
Regarding the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) in crop production, Cornucopia supports limitingCO2 use to specific applications such as adjusting irrigation water pH to prevent mineral and algae buildup, where it replaces less desirable treatments. However, the organization opposes broader allowances for CO2 in indoor crop production systems, including greenhouses, citing concerns about its compatibility with organic regulations and potential unfair advantages for soilless production systems like hydroponics and aeroponics. Cornucopia stresses the importance of soil-based organic farming and recommends that synthetic CO2 use be restricted to byproduct sources, explicitly prohibiting CO2 production through fossil fuel combustion for enrichment purposes due to environmental harm linked to synthetic CO2 and climate change.
Cornucopia also opposes the proposed reintroduction of sodium nitrate at up to 20 percent of crop nitrogen requirements as a natural fertilizer. While sodium nitrate is naturally derived, the group considers it inconsistent with organic principles because it bypasses soil biological processes by supplying nitrogen in highly soluble form directly to plants. The organization argues this can undermine soil fertility management, reduce incentives for cover cropping and composting, and increase risks of nitrate leaching and groundwater contamination. Citing past National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommendations that prohibit ammonia extracts and limit highly soluble nitrogen fertilizers, Cornucopia is concerned that the absence of updated rulemaking will perpetuate regulatory ambiguity and enforcement challenges, potentially enabling fraud. They advocate listing sodium nitrate as a completely prohibited natural substance under the National List or alternatively returning the matter to the NOSB for reconsideration given the current regulatory context.
In the area of livestock care, Cornucopia backs adding Meloxicam, a synthetic pain reliever, to the National List for organic livestock production. The organization finds Meloxicam to be effective, affordable, easy to administer, and safe, with low risk of residue in the food supply. They emphasize its utility for pain management in dairy calves during procedures like disbudding and acknowledge benefits for poultry welfare where treatment options are limited. This addition is viewed as enhancing animal health within organic systems.
Conversely, Cornucopia does not support removing existing restrictions on the use of synthetic DL-Methionine in organic poultry feed. They caution that lifting limits on this feed additive could promote greater dependence on synthetic inputs, favor large industrial producers, and hinder market development of natural methionine alternatives derived from plant, animal, or fermentation sources. The organization highlights that DL-Methionine is primarily fossil fuel-based, which conflicts with organic sustainability goals. It points to viable alternatives such as brewers yeast, sunflower and sesame meal, fish meal, and emerging insect-based feeds like black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) that provide essential nutrients for poultry and promote environmental benefits by recycling waste. Cornucopia encourages the NOP and NOSB to facilitate guidance supporting insect feed incorporation into organic production to enhance sustainability and animal nutrition.
Overall, the Cornucopia Institute calls for the NOP to maintain stringent regulations that reinforce soil-based crop production, limit synthetic and highly soluble nitrogen fertilizers, support animal welfare through judicious synthetic medication use, and promote sustainable, systems-based organic practices in livestock nutrition. These positions emphasize a holistic approach to organic farming that prioritizes ecosystem health, climate resilience, and authentic organic integrity.
***
Read full text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/AMS-NOP-22-0029-0068
Connected Health Initiative Calls for Clear Antitrust Guidance to Support Digital Health Collaboration
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Connected Health Initiative submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission urging the agencies to issue updated guidance on collaborations among competitors (Docket No. ATR-2026-0001). CHI emphasized the importance of clear and predictable rules to foster lawful, procompetitive collaborations that drive innovation in digital health technologies. These technologies are vital to advancing the Quadruple Aim goals of improving patient outcomes, reducing costs, enhancing population health management, and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Connected Health Initiative submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission urging the agencies to issue updated guidance on collaborations among competitors (Docket No. ATR-2026-0001). CHI emphasized the importance of clear and predictable rules to foster lawful, procompetitive collaborations that drive innovation in digital health technologies. These technologies are vital to advancing the Quadruple Aim goals of improving patient outcomes, reducing costs, enhancing population health management, andsupporting healthcare workforce well-being.
CHI, a coalition representing a broad range of stakeholders across digital health-including developers of apps, connected devices, AI-enabled tools, telehealth platforms, clinicians, patient advocates, and research institutions-highlighted the need to build on the framework established in the 2000 Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors. The organization recommended that the agencies maintain the original scope of the guidelines and avoid extending them to areas like standard-setting, voluntary consensus standards development, or intellectual property licensing, which are already governed by separate, well-established antitrust guidelines.
The letter outlined several priority areas for updated guidance, including information and data sharing among competitors, algorithmic pricing and third-party analytics tools, and collaborations related to artificial intelligence (AI) development in healthcare. CHI stressed that clear recognition of procompetitive data sharing-such as interoperable health data exchange facilitated by regulations like the 21st Century Cures Act-is essential to enable innovation, lower barriers for smaller developers, and improve patient care. At the same time, CHI advocated for guidance to differentiate lawful collaboration from anticompetitive practices, such as information withholding or excessive access conditions that disadvantage smaller competitors.
Regarding AI, CHI underscored the sector's reliance on various collaborative activities, including pooled training data consortia, joint evaluation and benchmarking efforts, multi-stakeholder development of transparency and risk assessment frameworks, and pre-competitive AI research. The organization asserted that these collaborations promote safe, effective AI tools and align with procompetitive precedents in pharmaceutical and medical device development.
The connected health community also pointed to the necessity of antitrust clarity around workforce development collaborations, which address healthcare labor shortages through joint training programs and shared credentialing. CHI recommended that such workforce initiatives generally be recognized as procompetitive.
In addition to topical guidance, CHI urged the agencies to preserve and modernize key analytical tools from the 2000 guidelines, including avoiding reliance on structural shortcuts or speculative harm theories, maintaining safety zones calibrated to contemporary market dynamics, recognizing competitive efficiencies from joint conduct, and continuing the distinction between per se and rule-of-reason analysis. The organization encouraged the incorporation of updated illustrative examples to assist smaller businesses navigating antitrust compliance.
CHI concluded by expressing appreciation for the agencies' efforts to restore transparent and reliable guidance on competitor collaborations and welcomed further engagement to discuss their recommendations. The coalition emphasized that balanced antitrust oversight is critical to sustaining a competitive digital health marketplace that benefits patients, providers, and innovators alike.
***
The letter was signed by:
Brian Scarpelli
Executive Director
Chapin Gregor
Policy Counsel
Connected Health Initiative
1401 K St NW (Ste 501)
Washington, DC 20005
***
Read full text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ATR-2026-0001-0096
Business Roundtable Urges FTC and DOJ to Update Competitor Collaboration Guidelines
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Business Roundtable, representing over 200 chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies spanning all sectors of the economy, submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice. The letter responds to the Agencies' joint public inquiry on guidance concerning collaborations among competitors. BRT emphasized the importance of updated guidelines to provide clarity for businesses, promote pro-competitive collaborations, and ultimately benefit consumers (Docket No. ATR-2026-0001).
BRT highlighted that clear and predictable
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Business Roundtable, representing over 200 chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies spanning all sectors of the economy, submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice. The letter responds to the Agencies' joint public inquiry on guidance concerning collaborations among competitors. BRT emphasized the importance of updated guidelines to provide clarity for businesses, promote pro-competitive collaborations, and ultimately benefit consumers (Docket No. ATR-2026-0001).
BRT highlighted that clear and predictableguidance from the FTC and DOJ is essential in the modern, rapidly evolving economy. The group noted that while collaborations and joint ventures among competitors often foster competition and consumer benefits, uncertainty about antitrust enforcement can discourage businesses from pursuing such partnerships. Updated guidance would mitigate this chilling effect by clarifying how the Agencies evaluate and potentially challenge competitor collaborations.
The letter highlighted that the contemporary economy is characterized by fast technological innovation and changing business models that are not fully addressed by existing antitrust statutes and case law. BRT urged the Agencies to update the 2000 Competitor Collaboration Guidelines rather than completely rewrite them, building on their sound economic foundations and analytical rigor. The 2000 guidelines acknowledged that many competitor collaborations are pro-competitive and set forth a flexible rule of reason framework for evaluation, which BRT believes remains vital.
Specifically, BRT encouraged the Agencies to retain the core analytical principles of the 2000 guidelines, including the distinction that only certain agreements that almost always harm competition are per se illegal, while most others are subject to rule of reason scrutiny. This approach appropriately considers market definition, market shares, and potential competitive effects, fostering a transparent and predictable enforcement environment.
The letter also praised the "antitrust safety zones" in the 2000 guidelines, which offer businesses important certainty when structuring collaborations. BRT recommended expanding these safety zones to include areas such as worker and food safety collaborations, reasonable sharing of aggregated, non-competitively sensitive information for purposes like fraud prevention and safety improvements, and coordination related to artificial intelligence (AI) development and testing. The inclusion of such safety zones would encourage pro-competitive collaborations aligned with the Agencies' enforcement priorities.
BRT further urged the Agencies to address changes in business practices and technological developments since 2000. One key area for updated guidance is information sharing among competitors. As prior policy statements on information sharing have been rescinded, BRT advocated for guidance clarifying what types of information are considered non-public or competitively sensitive, the factors that reduce antitrust concerns, and how aggregated third-party data is evaluated. The group noted that sharing historical, aggregated data can enhance safety standards, improve customer experiences, and help maintain resilient supply chains during emergencies.
The letter also called for guidance on joint ventures, emphasizing the need for clarity on when a joint venture might be treated as a merger and the analytical framework applied when evaluating such collaborations. It highlighted the benefits joint ventures offer, including economies of scale, market entry, capital raising, and cost efficiencies. BRT stressed that competitor collaborations encompass a range of arrangements, from contractual agreements to formal joint ventures, and the analysis should turn on likely competitive impact.
In addition, BRT recommended guidance on competitor coordination regarding standard setting and interoperability. Such collaborations enable product compatibility and consumer choice but may raise antitrust concerns. The letter underscored that some regulators require discussion of interoperability even outside formal standard setting processes, noting that guidance would aid businesses in navigating these regulatory demands while complying with antitrust law. BRT also urged the Agencies to incorporate protection of intellectual property rights in any updated guidance, recognizing their role in incentivizing innovation and reflecting longstanding antitrust principles.
The impact of AI across industries was another focal point. BRT highlighted that AI development often requires substantial collaboration to access key inputs like data, infrastructure, and talent. The letter requested that the Agencies provide guidance on evaluating competitor collaborations involving AI, including whether the analytical approach varies depending on the levels of the AI technology stack involved. The group also sought discussion of collaborations among both direct competitors and vertically related businesses, along with illustrative hypothetical examples.
Finally, BRT called for general guidance on how the Agencies may assess competitor collaborations involving future technological advances, given the impracticality of updating guidelines for every emerging innovation. The group expressed appreciation for the FTC and DOJ joint inquiry and encouraged the Agencies to build updated guidance on the foundational 2000 guidelines while reflecting current market realities and technological progress to foster pro-competitive collaborations for the benefit of competition and consumers.
***
Read full text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ATR-2026-0001-0056
Boulder School of Massage Therapy Raises Concerns Over Department of Education's Earnings Accountability Rule
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Boulder School of Massage Therapy, a Colorado-based not-for-profit institution in its pre-opening phase, has submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education regarding the department's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Earnings Accountability and the Student Tuition and Transparency System under the AHEAD Act. The letter expresses concerns about how the proposed framework, relying on IRS administrative earnings data, could misrepresent the financial outcomes of massage therapy graduates and threaten the viability of
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Boulder School of Massage Therapy, a Colorado-based not-for-profit institution in its pre-opening phase, has submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education regarding the department's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Earnings Accountability and the Student Tuition and Transparency System under the AHEAD Act. The letter expresses concerns about how the proposed framework, relying on IRS administrative earnings data, could misrepresent the financial outcomes of massage therapy graduates and threaten the viability ofspecialized single-program institutions like BSMT.
The school's primary contention is that the Department's proposed definition of earnings, which focuses on W-2 wage data, fails to capture critical sources of compensation typical in massage therapy. Key elements such as tips, self-employment income reported on Schedule C, and percentage-based compensation received by many practitioners are structurally excluded or underreported. The IRS only began comprehensive tip income reporting in the 2026 tax year, rendering historical tax data unreliable for professions with substantial tip income. Additionally, self-employed massage therapists, who often earn significantly more than their employed peers, are excluded from the data sets underpinning the earnings accountability measure.
The letter highlights Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data that contradicts the lower earnings figures used in existing Department calculations. According to the BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook, the median annual wage for massage therapists was $57,950 in May 2024 with a strong employment growth projection of 15 percent through 2034 and a low unemployment rate of about 1.6 percent. The Colorado wage environment is even more favorable, ranking among the top five states nationally with mean annual wages around $68,920, figures not reflected in the IRS data used by the department. The school urges the department to explicitly recognize and adjust for these discrepancies, recommending that supplemental data sources and correction factors be incorporated to ensure fairness.
Another concern raised pertains to the application of a national earnings benchmark as a comparator for specialized regional professions such as massage therapy. Because wages vary considerably by geography, the use of a single national standard may disproportionately penalize programs in lower-wage areas while benefiting those in high-wage locales. BSMT advocates for the use of metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or state-level benchmarks as a default and suggests that institutions be allowed to submit verified regional wage data, graduate surveys, or licensing board information to support earnings calculations.
The proposed administrative capability standard, which risks placing institutions on provisional Program Participation Agreement status if multiple programs fail the earnings test, poses existential risks for single-program schools like BSMT. The school warns that a single adverse determination based on flawed earnings data could jeopardize its access to Title IV federal financial aid, essentially resulting in institutional closure. It requests that single-program institutions be exempted from this threshold unless repeated failures occur and that they be granted data challenge pathways before any such sanctions are applied.
Further, the school critiques the mandatory student warning requirement that would compel institutions to notify current and prospective students when programs are at risk of losing federal Direct Loan eligibility prior to final determinations. BSMT argues that this prematurely creates reputational harm, discouraging enrollment based on contested preliminary data. The school recommends delaying warnings until supplemental data submissions and appeals are resolved, enabling institutions to attach clear explanatory statements to any required notices.
BSMT also highlights the structural disadvantage vocational and career-focused programs face under the earnings premium standard, which compares graduate earnings to a general population baseline rather than assessing improvements over students' pre-enrollment wages. The school suggests including an earnings trajectory measure to more accurately capture the economic advancement of students transitioning from lower-wage sectors into professional roles.
Lastly, the letter calls for expanded institutional rights to challenge earnings determinations with requests for a formal pre-determination review process, clear evidentiary standards, independent appeals, and transparency through advance publication of earnings calculations and institutional review periods.
BSMT concludes by affirming its support for accountability and quality education standards but stresses the need for an earnings accountability framework that accurately reflects its profession's realities. The school appeals to the department to broaden the earnings definition, adopt regional benchmarks, calibrate administrative capability standards for single-program schools, defer student warnings pending data disputes, enrich challenge procedures, and integrate supplemental metrics that value career advancement.
***
URL: Boulder School of Massage Therapy
***
Read full text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ED-2026-OPE-0100-8692
7 Real Estate Organizations Urge DOJ and FTC to Provide Clear Guidance on Competitor Collaborations and Reinstate Antitrust Safety Zone
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- A coalition of seven real estate organizations has submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission in response to their joint request for guidance on competitor collaborations (Docket No. ATR-2026-0001). The group, representing rental housing providers, suppliers, and technology partners, highlighted the critical role these businesses play in addressing the nation's housing affordability challenges and emphasized the need for updated antitrust guidance to foster procompetitive collaboration.
The organizations
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- A coalition of seven real estate organizations has submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission in response to their joint request for guidance on competitor collaborations (Docket No. ATR-2026-0001). The group, representing rental housing providers, suppliers, and technology partners, highlighted the critical role these businesses play in addressing the nation's housing affordability challenges and emphasized the need for updated antitrust guidance to foster procompetitive collaboration.
The organizationsstressed that technology-driven solutions and information sharing among competitors, such as benchmarking, are vital tools that enhance efficiency, innovation, and consumer benefits in the rental housing market. They urged the agencies to clarify how businesses can engage in lawful information exchanges and benchmarking efforts without fear of antitrust repercussions, highlighting that such activities should be encouraged in a complex economic environment.
Citing longstanding legal precedents, the groups advocated for the recognition that sharing historical, aggregated, and anonymized data managed by neutral third parties minimizes anticompetitive risks while generating benefits for businesses and consumers alike. They called for reinstating the "antitrust safety zone" from the 1996 Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care, which was withdrawn by the prior administration, to provide clear, reliable safe harbor conditions for competitor information exchanges across industries, including rental housing.
The comment letter also recommended that the agencies affirm the application of the "rule of reason" legal standard when examining the use of algorithmic pricing software. The organizations pointed out that such software can promote price competition and efficiencies, cautioning against any per se antitrust condemnation that could undermine innovative pricing methods beneficial to markets and consumers.
Highlighting the ongoing challenges related to antitrust scrutiny of algorithmic pricing in the rental housing industry, including federal and state litigation, the groups argued that uncertainty created by the absence of clear guidance diverts resources away from serving residents and impedes constructive industry collaboration. They called on the agencies to establish updated guidance that encourages responsible, data-driven collaboration among competitors and reinforces that procompetitive activities, such as benchmarking, are not only permitted but desirable.
By providing definitive guidance and restoring the antitrust safety zone, the DOJ and FTC can help ensure that American businesses in the rental housing sector and beyond have the certainty needed to compete effectively and innovate for the benefit of consumers and communities.
***
The letter was signed by:
Council for Affordable and Rural Housing
Manufactured Housing Institute
National Affordable Housing Management Association
National Apartment Association
National Leased Housing Association
National Multifamily Housing Council
Real Estate Technology & Transformation Center
***
Read full text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ATR-2026-0001-0066
Electronic Privacy Information Center Calls for Privacy Protections in FTC and DOJ Guidance on Business Collaborations
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Electronic Privacy Information Center, an independent public interest research center based in Washington, D.C., has submitted a public comment letter to the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (Docket No. ATR-2026-0001). EPIC urges the agencies to incorporate robust data privacy protections as they consider developing guidance on collaborations among competitors, highlighting the intersection of privacy concerns and competition in today's data-driven economy.
EPIC emphasizes that while joint ventures and business collaborations
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Electronic Privacy Information Center, an independent public interest research center based in Washington, D.C., has submitted a public comment letter to the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (Docket No. ATR-2026-0001). EPIC urges the agencies to incorporate robust data privacy protections as they consider developing guidance on collaborations among competitors, highlighting the intersection of privacy concerns and competition in today's data-driven economy.
EPIC emphasizes that while joint ventures and business collaborationscan positively influence the economy, they also pose risks to consumers when data is consolidated without sufficient safeguards. In the data economy where surveillance is pervasive and emerging technologies remain largely unregulated, EPIC stresses the importance of addressing privacy implications alongside antitrust considerations. In its letter to the agencies, EPIC recommends prioritizing data privacy, instituting protections against surveillance-based personalized pricing, and underscoring privacy's critical role in fostering competition.
A central recommendation from EPIC is that any guidance published by the FTC and DOJ include strict data minimization standards. Companies frequently overcollect and commodify consumer data, which undermines consumer control, raises security risks, and can lead to misuse and discrimination. These risks intensify as businesses combine, transfer, and merge their data during collaborations. EPIC points to data minimization-limiting data collection, use, transfer, and retention to what is reasonably necessary-as the most effective approach to protecting privacy. The organization has consistently advocated for such rules and urges the agencies to adopt this principle in their guidance to reduce potential harms from joint ventures.
Addressing algorithmic pricing practices, EPIC highlights that the current 2000 FTC and DOJ Collaboration Guidelines do not adequately tackle concerns raised by the use of advanced AI systems and consumer data to drive personalized prices. Such algorithmic pricing can exploit consumers by charging different prices based on inferred willingness to pay, outcomes that consumers are often unaware of. EPIC points to issues involving companies like Kroger, which has faced media scrutiny for its use of facial recognition and electronic shelf labels to differentiate prices. The public comment letter calls on the agencies to provide guidance limiting data use in algorithmic pricing and fostering transparency, which would help prevent unfair, deceptive, or discriminatory pricing schemes.
The group also advocates for the FTC to complete its Section 6(b) study on surveillance pricing, aligning with the FTC Chair's position on issuing a comprehensive report. EPIC argues that this research would aid the formulation of informed guidance on how business collaborations utilize data for pricing strategies-steps necessary to establish a level playing field for all companies while protecting consumers.
On market consolidation and competition remedies, EPIC warns that privacy concerns must not be overlooked. Citing the DOJ's case against Google, the letter underscores that remedies requiring data sharing must ensure strong privacy protections to prevent further misuse of personal information. EPIC notes that current measures mandating "privacy-enhancing techniques" without clear specifications are inadequate. The recent multi-year partnership between Google and Apple involving AI services exemplifies why privacy safeguards need to be explicitly integrated into competition remedies.
EPIC's letter further urges the agencies to include guidance about reasonable third-party access revocation methods and enforce consumer rights to control and delete their data amid collaborative business arrangements. It points out that privacy and competition mutually reinforce each other and that consumer trust is enhanced when personal data is handled with care.
In closing, EPIC calls on the FTC and DOJ to update their framework with attention to contemporary technological and market realities. The organization stresses that privacy should no longer be considered secondary but rather an essential component of effective competition policy and business collaboration oversight.
***
The letter was signed by:
Enid Zhou, Senior Counsel
Sara Geoghegan, Senior Counsel & Director, Consumer Privacy Program
ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (EPIC)
1519 New Hampshire Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036
***
Read full text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ATR-2026-0001-0083
Cornucopia Institute Urges USDA to Limit Synthetic Inputs in Organic Standards
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Cornucopia Institute, Viroqua, Wisconsin, submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Organic Program addressing proposed changes to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under organic standards. The organization advocates for stricter regulations to emphasize preventive health management and minimize reliance on synthetic materials in organic agriculture consistent with its foundational principles (Docket No. AMS-NOP-22-0029).
Regarding the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) in crop production, Cornucopia supports limiting
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Cornucopia Institute, Viroqua, Wisconsin, submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Organic Program addressing proposed changes to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under organic standards. The organization advocates for stricter regulations to emphasize preventive health management and minimize reliance on synthetic materials in organic agriculture consistent with its foundational principles (Docket No. AMS-NOP-22-0029).
Regarding the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) in crop production, Cornucopia supports limitingCO2 use to specific applications such as adjusting irrigation water pH to prevent mineral and algae buildup, where it replaces less desirable treatments. However, the organization opposes broader allowances for CO2 in indoor crop production systems, including greenhouses, citing concerns about its compatibility with organic regulations and potential unfair advantages for soilless production systems like hydroponics and aeroponics. Cornucopia stresses the importance of soil-based organic farming and recommends that synthetic CO2 use be restricted to byproduct sources, explicitly prohibiting CO2 production through fossil fuel combustion for enrichment purposes due to environmental harm linked to synthetic CO2 and climate change.
Cornucopia also opposes the proposed reintroduction of sodium nitrate at up to 20 percent of crop nitrogen requirements as a natural fertilizer. While sodium nitrate is naturally derived, the group considers it inconsistent with organic principles because it bypasses soil biological processes by supplying nitrogen in highly soluble form directly to plants. The organization argues this can undermine soil fertility management, reduce incentives for cover cropping and composting, and increase risks of nitrate leaching and groundwater contamination. Citing past National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommendations that prohibit ammonia extracts and limit highly soluble nitrogen fertilizers, Cornucopia is concerned that the absence of updated rulemaking will perpetuate regulatory ambiguity and enforcement challenges, potentially enabling fraud. They advocate listing sodium nitrate as a completely prohibited natural substance under the National List or alternatively returning the matter to the NOSB for reconsideration given the current regulatory context.
In the area of livestock care, Cornucopia backs adding Meloxicam, a synthetic pain reliever, to the National List for organic livestock production. The organization finds Meloxicam to be effective, affordable, easy to administer, and safe, with low risk of residue in the food supply. They emphasize its utility for pain management in dairy calves during procedures like disbudding and acknowledge benefits for poultry welfare where treatment options are limited. This addition is viewed as enhancing animal health within organic systems.
Conversely, Cornucopia does not support removing existing restrictions on the use of synthetic DL-Methionine in organic poultry feed. They caution that lifting limits on this feed additive could promote greater dependence on synthetic inputs, favor large industrial producers, and hinder market development of natural methionine alternatives derived from plant, animal, or fermentation sources. The organization highlights that DL-Methionine is primarily fossil fuel-based, which conflicts with organic sustainability goals. It points to viable alternatives such as brewers yeast, sunflower and sesame meal, fish meal, and emerging insect-based feeds like black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) that provide essential nutrients for poultry and promote environmental benefits by recycling waste. Cornucopia encourages the NOP and NOSB to facilitate guidance supporting insect feed incorporation into organic production to enhance sustainability and animal nutrition.
Overall, the Cornucopia Institute calls for the NOP to maintain stringent regulations that reinforce soil-based crop production, limit synthetic and highly soluble nitrogen fertilizers, support animal welfare through judicious synthetic medication use, and promote sustainable, systems-based organic practices in livestock nutrition. These positions emphasize a holistic approach to organic farming that prioritizes ecosystem health, climate resilience, and authentic organic integrity.
***
Read full text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/AMS-NOP-22-0029-0068
Cornucopia Institute Urges USDA to Limit Synthetic Inputs in Organic Standards
Carter Struck
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Cornucopia Institute, Viroqua, Wisconsin, submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Organic Program addressing proposed changes to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under organic standards. The organization advocates for stricter regulations to emphasize preventive health management and minimize reliance on synthetic materials in organic agriculture consistent with its foundational principles (Docket No. AMS-NOP-22-0029).
Regarding the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) in crop production, Cornucopia supports limiting
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 29 -- The Cornucopia Institute, Viroqua, Wisconsin, submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Organic Program addressing proposed changes to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under organic standards. The organization advocates for stricter regulations to emphasize preventive health management and minimize reliance on synthetic materials in organic agriculture consistent with its foundational principles (Docket No. AMS-NOP-22-0029).
Regarding the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) in crop production, Cornucopia supports limitingCO2 use to specific applications such as adjusting irrigation water pH to prevent mineral and algae buildup, where it replaces less desirable treatments. However, the organization opposes broader allowances for CO2 in indoor crop production systems, including greenhouses, citing concerns about its compatibility with organic regulations and potential unfair advantages for soilless production systems like hydroponics and aeroponics. Cornucopia stresses the importance of soil-based organic farming and recommends that synthetic CO2 use be restricted to byproduct sources, explicitly prohibiting CO2 production through fossil fuel combustion for enrichment purposes due to environmental harm linked to synthetic CO2 and climate change.
Cornucopia also opposes the proposed reintroduction of sodium nitrate at up to 20 percent of crop nitrogen requirements as a natural fertilizer. While sodium nitrate is naturally derived, the group considers it inconsistent with organic principles because it bypasses soil biological processes by supplying nitrogen in highly soluble form directly to plants. The organization argues this can undermine soil fertility management, reduce incentives for cover cropping and composting, and increase risks of nitrate leaching and groundwater contamination. Citing past National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommendations that prohibit ammonia extracts and limit highly soluble nitrogen fertilizers, Cornucopia is concerned that the absence of updated rulemaking will perpetuate regulatory ambiguity and enforcement challenges, potentially enabling fraud. They advocate listing sodium nitrate as a completely prohibited natural substance under the National List or alternatively returning the matter to the NOSB for reconsideration given the current regulatory context.
In the area of livestock care, Cornucopia backs adding Meloxicam, a synthetic pain reliever, to the National List for organic livestock production. The organization finds Meloxicam to be effective, affordable, easy to administer, and safe, with low risk of residue in the food supply. They emphasize its utility for pain management in dairy calves during procedures like disbudding and acknowledge benefits for poultry welfare where treatment options are limited. This addition is viewed as enhancing animal health within organic systems.
Conversely, Cornucopia does not support removing existing restrictions on the use of synthetic DL-Methionine in organic poultry feed. They caution that lifting limits on this feed additive could promote greater dependence on synthetic inputs, favor large industrial producers, and hinder market development of natural methionine alternatives derived from plant, animal, or fermentation sources. The organization highlights that DL-Methionine is primarily fossil fuel-based, which conflicts with organic sustainability goals. It points to viable alternatives such as brewers yeast, sunflower and sesame meal, fish meal, and emerging insect-based feeds like black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) that provide essential nutrients for poultry and promote environmental benefits by recycling waste. Cornucopia encourages the NOP and NOSB to facilitate guidance supporting insect feed incorporation into organic production to enhance sustainability and animal nutrition.
Overall, the Cornucopia Institute calls for the NOP to maintain stringent regulations that reinforce soil-based crop production, limit synthetic and highly soluble nitrogen fertilizers, support animal welfare through judicious synthetic medication use, and promote sustainable, systems-based organic practices in livestock nutrition. These positions emphasize a holistic approach to organic farming that prioritizes ecosystem health, climate resilience, and authentic organic integrity.
***
Read full text of letter here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/AMS-NOP-22-0029-0068
