AIBS Comments on the Proposed OMB Federal Grants Rule
 
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) has submitted formal comments urging the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to abandon its proposed rewrite of the Uniform Guidance for federal financial assistance (2 CFR Part 200), warning that the rule would destabilize the nation's research enterprise and politicize how federal science is funded.
 
Published on May 29, 2026, the proposed rule would touch nearly every stage of the federal award life cycle. In its comments, AIBS focused on the provisions affecting scientific research: a new pre-issuance review that would let political appointees override independent peer review; expanded authority to terminate active awards midstream when priorities shift; broad restrictions on international collaboration; new limits on conferences, publishing and open access, and professional memberships; and a default prohibition on publication costs that conflicts with existing federal open-access policy. AIBS also noted that the rule was issued with only a 45-day comment period and without any analysis of its costs.
 
“AIBS shares OMB's stated goals of transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars,” the comments state. “We are deeply concerned, however, that this proposed rule, taken as a whole, would cause lasting and largely preventable harm to the U.S. research enterprise—harm that would outlast any single administration.”
 
The comments argue that the rule runs counter to the Trump Administration's own Executive Order on Restoring Gold Standard Science (EO 14303), which calls for science that is “reproducible, transparent, collaborative, interdisciplinary, subject to unbiased peer review, and free of conflicts of interest.” Instead, AIBS writes, the rule “would replace unbiased expert review with review by political appointees, restrict the international collaboration that is a cornerstone of how science advances, and tie funding to administration priorities that may change at any moment.”
 
AIBS urged OMB to abandon the rule in its current form and to approach any future major revisions to federal grantmaking policies with appropriate stakeholder consultation and analysis.
 
Read the full comments.
 
Today is the last day to submit comments. To make it as easy as possible for individuals to engage, AIBS has partnered with APS on a dedicated online tool to help researchers, educators, and scientists craft and submit their own personalized comments directly to regulations.gov. AIBS has also compiled a list of additional resources on the proposed rule.
 
 
AIBS Joins Call For Congressional Oversight of USDA Collections Relocation
 
AIBS, in partnership with the Natural Science Collections Alliance, the Mycological Society of America, the Society of Nematologists, and 13 additional scientific organizations, has sent a letter to Congress urging oversight of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) planned relocation of several nationally significant scientific collections.
 
The letter raises concerns about the future of critical agricultural collections—including the U.S. National Fungus Collection, the USDA Nematode Collection, the Maize Genetics Cooperation Stock Center, and the National Soybean Germplasm Collection—as USDA's reorganization proceeds. It urges Congress to exercise its oversight role by holding hearings and ensuring that detailed relocation plans, appropriate facilities, and long-term staffing commitments are in place before any transfers occur. The letter was sent to the Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture.
 
The organizations emphasize that these collections and the scientific expertise required to maintain them are essential to agricultural research and biosecurity. “Together, these collections and their associated experts make the United States a world leader in scientific research that safeguards the future of American and global agriculture,” the letter states. “We are confident that with appropriate oversight and planning, these transitions can be managed in a way that preserves these extraordinary resources for future generations.”
 
Science Insider recently reported on accelerating plans to close the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), which is home to the fungal and nematode collections highlighted in the letter. The facility was initially slated to close over several years, but USDA is now directing researchers to relocate to other facilities by the end of September. A lawsuit has now been filed over the USDA reorganization. A coalition of labor unions, nonprofit organizations, and local governments is seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the reorganization, arguing that USDA lacks congressional authorization for the plan and that the resulting relocations and staff losses would undermine the agency's scientific, research, and public service missions.
 
 
Russell Vought Testifies Before Congress, Defends Proposed Grants Rule
 
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government questioned Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought about the agency's proposed rule revising federal financial assistance regulations during a June 30 hearing.
 
The proposed rule's comment period ends July 13. During the hearing, Vought said he would not extend the comment period, despite requests from lawmakers, including Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) and House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), as well as over 300 scientific groups, including AIBS. Senator Collins also called on OMB to withdraw parts of the proposed rule arguing it “would impose new, burdensome requirements on award recipients that would harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.” Additionally, all 47 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus signed a letter opposing the rule, as did 125 House Democrats.
 
Although OMB has not yet finalized the rule, some of its provisions are already being implemented by agencies in response to earlier executive orders. The National Science Foundation (NSF), for example, issued revisions to its Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide. Supplement 1 (NSF 26-200) removed or revised terminology related to diversity and inclusion, while Supplement 2 (NSF 26-202) incorporates changes intended to comply with the Administration's Gold Standard Science executive order.
 
More recently, in an unusual move, NSF issued a request for information on its plan to conform its grant policies to the proposed OMB rule before it is finalized. The plan includes changes to grant termination provisions, disallowing publication costs, and removing references to fixed-amount awards. Comments on those proposed changes are due August 24.
 
When Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) asked whether agencies were preemptively enforcing the proposed rule, Vought replied that they were implementing the President's executive order rather than the proposed regulation itself. “This stems from an executive order that the President signed last year....This regulation is catching up with that executive order to make sure it is actually reflected in the mechanics of grantmaking.”

Vought also acknowledged that OMB staff use artificial intelligence tools to review grant applications, but final decisions are based on agency discretion not OMB. He said OMB does not have a dedicated AI contract and that the technology is used primarily to identify fraud and abuse, which he characterized as "extensive." Pressed to quantify the amount of fraudulent spending, however, he did not provide figures.
 
Vought expressed opposition to fixed-amount awards and federal support for professional development activities such as conferences, describing such expenditures as excessive and arguing that grants should advance Administration priorities rather than individual enrichment. He also expressed frustration that legal challenges and congressional action have prevented OMB from restricting indirect cost rates. "One thing not in this because you all barred us from doing it, there's nothing regarding indirect cost rates in this regulation. But indirect costs are the kind of things [we're] trying to restrict as much as we can,” he said. Vought added that congressional earmarks would not be affected by the rule and encouraged stakeholders to submit comments during the rulemaking process. He also said he would take meetings arranged by members of Congress with concerned grant applicants from their districts.
 
Asked about the proposal's provision allowing agencies to terminate grants, Vought defended broad cancellation authority by citing a hypothetical: If we find that NIH is giving money to the Wuhan Institute…and we need to cancel that grant in the middle of a pandemic that it contributed to with its gain of function research, we need to have the ability to turn the grant off.” Beyond expanding agencies' authority to terminate awards, the proposed rule would also broaden opportunities for judicial review of certain grant decisions.
 
The hearing also touched on broader management issues. Vought acknowledged that the New World screwworm poses a genuine threat but denied that funding reductions contained in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act contributed to the parasite's spread. He was unable to answer Representative Sanford Bishop's (D-GA) questions about how many U.S. Department of Agriculture positions had been eliminated through DOGE and later restored. Similarly, Vought said OMB was unaware of staffing shortages affecting the World Trade Center Health Program and suggested responsibility rested with individual agencies. He characterized the widespread firing and rehiring of federal employees as part of a normal “dynamic process,” prompting Representative Glenn Ivey (D-MD) to describe the situation as “a dynamic waste of money.”
 
Lawmakers also questioned delays in distributing appropriated funds. Vought attributed the delays to efforts to improve oversight and efficiency. Representative Chuck Edwards (R-NC) praised Vought for providing money to his district to rebuild after Hurricane Helene, though the funding was only released after direct prompting from Edwards. Vought was unable to provide details about spending on initiatives such as DOGE and Operation Epic Fury or explain a reported $1.2 billion Department of Defense budget item designated for “administration priorities.”
 
Despite his emphasis on reducing federal spending and regulation, Vought argued that OMB itself requires additional resources to carry out its oversight responsibilities. The President's FY 2027 budget request seeks a $17.1 million increase for OMB—a 13.3% increase over the previous year. Reflecting on his first term as OMB Director, Vought said he had previously favored reducing the agency's workforce but concluded that additional personnel are necessary because OMB must oversee an increasingly large federal government.
 
He contrasted OMB's staffing needs with those of the Internal Revenue Service, arguing that while the IRS is providing “historically better” taxpayer services with fewer employees, OMB requires additional analysts to manage its growing responsibilities. He also said part of the requested increase would cover relocation and security costs stemming from threats directed at him and his staff, arguing that the additional investment would ultimately save taxpayers money through more effective oversight.

 
NSF Announces Prohibition on Collaborations with Restricted Entities
 
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has issued a Dear Colleague Letter announcing a forthcoming research security policy that will prohibit the use of NSF funds for collaborations with organizations on U.S. restricted parties lists.
 
Under the policy, senior and key personnel on NSF-funded projects also will be prohibited from holding appointments with, receiving research support from, or collaborating on NSF-funded research with those restricted entities or their employees. Institutions and investigators will be required to certify compliance with the new requirements when submitting proposals.
 
According to Science Insider, the policy would effectively bar NSF-funded researchers from collaborating with scientists at many of China's leading research institutions because they appear on U.S. restricted entity lists, marking a significant expansion of existing research security restrictions.

NSF said the policy is intended to strengthen research security, align with broader U.S. government restrictions, and provide advance notice so researchers and institutions have time to prepare. The agency expects to implement the policy in fiscal year 2027 alongside updated NSF financial assistance guidance. Questions about the policy can be submitted to researchsecurity@nsf.gov.
 
 
Trump Administration Finalizes Narrower Endangered Species Act Protections
 
The Trump Administration has finalized a rule narrowing how the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is interpreted by revising the long-standing regulatory definition of “harm” used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries.
 
Under the revised interpretation, habitat modification that may impair a species' survival will no longer be considered “harm” under the ESA, reversing a policy that has been in place for decades. Administration officials said the change restores the law's original meaning, provides greater certainty for landowners, and aligns with the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine and held that courts must independently interpret statutes rather than defer to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous provisions.
 
The revised rule marks a significant shift from the interpretation upheld by the Supreme Court in 1995, when the Court concluded that habitat destruction resulting in injury or death to protected species could constitute prohibited “harm” under the ESA. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the previous interpretation had been used to unnecessarily restrict lawful land use and burden property owners. The Administration emphasized that the ESA's prohibition on directly injuring or killing listed species remains unchanged and that endangered and threatened species will continue to receive the law's core protections.
 
Conservation organizations argue the change will weaken one of the ESA's most important safe guards by making it easier for development, mining, logging, and energy projects to proceed in critical wildlife habitat. The Administration proposed rescinding the definition in April 2025, and the final rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register shortly.
 
 
House Panel Weighs AI, Biosecurity, and U.S. Tech Leadership
 
Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee all agree, the United States needs to focus on advanced technologies in order to compete with China. How the US should approach this goal is subject to debate.
 
At a legislative hearing on June 30, 2026, members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade met to deliberate a slate of technology bills with four outside experts: Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute; Jason Fiorillo, Chief Legal Officer at Boston Dynamics; Marty Durbin, Senior Vice President for Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Dr. Jedidah Isler, Chief Science Officer at the Federation of American Scientists. The hearing, titled “American Global Competitiveness at 250: Legislative Proposals to Secure U.S. Technology Leadership,” centered on maintaining American leadership across key technological sectors as the nation approached its 250th anniversary.
 
Some panel members pointed to excessive regulation of AI and emerging technologies as a primary culprit behind slowed domestic innovation and commercial adoption. To curb what they view as foreign regulatory overreach affecting American business, Representative Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) introduced the PROTECT USA Act of 2025 (H.R. 9385). This bill seeks to prohibit U.S. companies vital to national interests from complying with extraterritorial foreign mandates, specifically targeting the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. Chilson agreed with the motivation behind the act and supported shielding American enterprises from these external regulations, though many democratic members did not. Instead, Democrats pointed to defunding of research and the politicization of science as the primary area of concern for declining US innovation. Dr. Isler pointed out that “technology is what science becomes when it is translated” and emphasized the importance of research funding throughout her statements.
 
Chilson championed open-source AI models as a vital vector for American innovation and verbalized his support for the Open-Source AI Leadership Act. Today, several prominent open-source AI models are emerging from China, drawing interest from small businesses, researchers, and startups in the U.S. that prefer open-source options due to lower operational costs and greater flexibility. Addressing this trend, Chilson noted, “The Chinese got ahead in the open-source space, in part, because they had no alternative. They cannot keep up with the frontier models that we build... so they focused on open source.” Representative Gabe Evans (R-CO), the bill's sponsor, voiced concerns regarding the intellectual property and national security threats posed by heavily subsidized Chinese models. Chilson countered that the most effective response is deploying more American open-source models so that citizens will choose safer domestic alternatives over Chinese ones. This perspective contrasts with warnings from tech leaders like Dario Amodei of Anthropic, who has previously testified to Congress that unrestricted open-source deployment of frontier models poses severe safety risks.
 
Congress is also increasingly focused on the biosecurity risks associated with emerging technologies, particularly synthetic biology. The committee discussed the Biosecurity Modernization and Innovation Act of 2026, which aims to establish a comprehensive federal framework for nucleic acid synthesis. The act would require gene synthesis providers to screen orders and customers for dangerous pathogens, report sequences of concern to federal authorities, and undergo periodic compliance audits. Civil and criminal violations could incur heavy financial penalties, reaching up to $500,000 for individual offenders and $750,000 for organizations. Additionally, the legislation would task federal authorities with tracking biological risks, while establishing a biotechnology governance sandbox at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to safely evaluate and test biosecurity screening tools without stifling innovation.
 
 
Supreme Court Bolsters Presidential Control Over Independent Agencies
 
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump Administration to remove members of certain independent federal agencies while litigation continues, permitting President Trump to dismiss commissioners whose continued service he determined was inconsistent with his Administration's priorities. The decision marks a significant shift in the long-standing understanding that commissioners at many independent agencies are protected from removal except “for cause,” such as neglect of duty or malfeasance. The ruling signals the Court's willingness to expand presidential authority over agencies that Congress designed to operate with a degree of political independence.
 
The ruling follows President Trump's dismissal of former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, whose removal letter stated that her continued service was “inconsistent with my Administration's priorities.” Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurring opinion argued that the Court should further limit the authority of federal agencies in future cases, writing that agencies have been granted “enormous legislative and judicial powers” by Congress. He called for restoring those powers to Congress and the courts.  The case is widely viewed as an important test of the independence of federal regulatory agencies.
 
The Administration's FY 2027 budget proposal also seeks major changes to several independent agencies. It again proposes eliminating the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), marking the fifth time a Trump Administration budget has called for abolishing the agency. The CSB investigates major industrial chemical accidents, including the 2024 BioLab chemical fire in Conyers, Georgia, which prompted widespread shelter-in-place orders after hazardous chlorine compounds were released. The Board is currently operating with only two of its five authorized members.
 
The budget request would also eliminate the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) as an independent agency by transferring its functions to the Department of Health and Human Services. Independent commissions were established to provide expert, bipartisan oversight insulated from day-to-day political influence, and the CPSC has traditionally been led by a bipartisan commission with no more than three commissioners from the same political party. However, the Commission currently has only one sitting commissioner following recent removals and vacancies.
 
The FY 2027 budget proposal states that agencies exercising executive authority “must align with the priorities of the President,” reflecting the Administration's broader view that independent agencies should operate under presidential direction. The proposal also emphasizes merit-based hiring, mission alignment, and reducing regulatory burdens on businesses while maintaining product safety.
 
Other independent agencies would see more limited changes. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) budget proposal would reduce funding for several programs while advancing regulatory reforms intended to accelerate nuclear energy deployment. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) requests level funding, but its strategic planning language has increasingly emphasized alignment with presidential priorities. Whereas earlier budget documents focused primarily on accomplishing the agency's statutory mission, recent plans explicitly state that budget development should support the President's priorities.
 
Together, the Supreme Court's ruling and the Administration's FY 2027 budget proposal reflect a broader effort to increase presidential oversight of agencies that have traditionally operated with a degree of independence. At the same time, the Administration has established new advisory bodies, including the Commission on Religious Liberty.

 
Register for the Writing for Impact and Influence Online Course
 
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) is offering its popular professional development program to help scientists and students hone their written communication skills to increase the power of their message.
 
Writing for Impact and Influence provides practical instruction and hands-on exercises that will improve the participant’s general writing proficiency. The program will provide participants with the skills and tools needed to compose scientific press releases, blog posts, memoranda, and more, with a focus on the reader experience and the appropriate use of modern writing tools, such as ChatGPT. Each product-oriented session will have an assignment (deadlines are flexible), with feedback from the instructor.
 
The course is interactive, and participants are encouraged to ask questions and exchange ideas with the instructor and other participants. Each session is also recorded and shared with all participants to accommodate scheduling conflicts.
 
Who Should Take the Course?

• Individuals interested in furthering their professional development by augmenting their writing skills.
• Graduate students and early-career professionals interested in increasing their marketability to employers.
• Individuals interested in more effectively informing and influencing segments of the public, supervisors, policymakers, reporters, organizational leaders, and others.

The course consists of six weekly 90-minute online modules conducted live and subsequently archived online for participant review. The course will begin on Friday, September 11, 2026, with subsequent course sessions held weekly on Fridays, through October 16.  Individuals who actively participate in and complete the full course will receive a certificate recognizing that they have completed a nine-hour professional development course on business writing for scientists.
 
Learn more and register.
 

Last Day to Register: Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits
 
Registrations for the 2026 Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits event will close today.
 
Now in its 17th year, this national initiative is an opportunity for biologists across the country to meet with their federal or state elected officials to showcase the people, facilities, and equipment that are required to support and conduct scientific research.  This initiative helps to put a face on science and to remind lawmakers that science is happening in their district and state.
 
The Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits event enables scientists, graduate students, representatives of research facilities, and people affiliated with scientific collections to meet with their federal or state elected officials without traveling to Washington, DC.  Participating scientists can meet with their elected officials at the local district office or invite them to visit their research facility.
   
AIBS will schedule participants’ meetings with lawmakers and will prepare participants through online training and one-on-one support.  Meetings will take place mid-July through October, depending on the participant’s schedule and their lawmaker’s availability.  Read the Frequently Asked Questions for more information.
 
This event is made possible by the American Institute of Biological Sciences, with the support of event sponsors American Arachnological Society, American Society of Primatologists, Botanical Society of America, Florida International University Institute of Environment, Helminthological Society of Washington, Mycological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Paleontological Society, Phycological Society, Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, Society of Nematologists, and Society for the Study of Evolution.
 
Registration for participation is free, but required and closes on July 13, 2026.  To learn more and register, visit io.aibs.org/cdv.
 
 
Short Takes

• The National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) will host a virtual office hour on July 16 from 1:00-2:00 p.m. ET. The event will feature a brief presentation addressing frequently asked questions, followed by a Q&A session with BIO staff. The webinar will not be recorded, but presentation slides may be made available afterward on the NSF events page. Registration is required.
• Leading research universities are reducing Ph.D. admissions amid uncertainty over the future of federal research funding. Data from the Association of American Universities (AAU) Data Exchange show that the number of students admitted to doctoral programs at 55 major research universities declined by 15 percent for fall 2026 compared with the previous year. AAU warned that instability in the longstanding partnership between federal research agencies and universities could have consequences for the nation’s scientific workforce, innovation capacity, and global competitiveness.
• The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has released a revised charter that broadens eligibility for committee membership and expands the group’s scope. Historically composed of experts in vaccinology, medicine, and public health, ACIP provides recommendations on vaccine use and immunization policy. Under the new charter, eligible members include individuals with “scientific, clinical, and public health expertise relevant to the Committee’s mission.” The committee’s responsibilities now explicitly include considering “the availability and effectiveness of other preventive measures, including non-vaccine interventions.” Public health experts and former ACIP members have raised concerns that the changes could weaken the role of vaccine science in federal immunization recommendations.
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a public hearing and comment session on July 7 regarding proposed changes to federal PFAS regulations. One proposal would rescind drinking water limits for several PFAS compounds, including PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX chemicals), and associated Hazard Index mixtures. EPA is pursuing the change on the grounds that the original rule did not follow federal rulemaking requirements and should be reassessed. A vast majority of the speakers opposed rescinding the existing limits, including scientists, health professionals, and individuals affected by PFAS contamination. The Federal Register docket has received more than 15,000 comments ahead of the July 20 comment deadline. The proposed rollback is one of several changes the Administration is pursuing related to federal regulation of PFAS, often referred to as “forever chemicals.”
• The National Academies is inviting comments on the newly launched decadal survey for Earth Science and Applications from Space (ESAS), seeking input on future priorities and opportunities for advancing the Earth science and observations in the decade ahead. Submissions are due by July 20, 2026. Input is sought on the future of the field, including science and applications priorities, observational needs, implementation approaches, workforce and education, data infrastructure, and other relevant issues.
• The NIH’s All of Us Research Program has released genomic data from more than 500,000 participants, paired with associated health information, to support biomedical research. The dataset expands access to genomic information from individuals with diverse ancestries, addressing a longstanding limitation of many large-scale genomic resources, which have historically included a disproportionate number of participants of European ancestry. According to the program’s website, 86 percent of participants come from communities historically underrepresented in biomedical research, including women, rural communities, people with disabilities, older adults, and people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.
• President Trump signed an executive order on regenerative agriculture on June 25 following a last-minute debate among farmers, advocates, and agricultural stakeholders at the White House. The order directs the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to conduct research on chemical exposure in the food supply. The order calls for the use of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) to better understand potential human health and environmental risks from chemical contaminants and support food safety.
• The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) released a new survey examining public exposure to and beliefs about common vaccine myths. The survey assessed misinformation claims, including that vaccines cause autism, COVID-19 vaccines have caused more deaths than the virus, mRNA vaccines alter DNA, and measles vaccines are more dangerous than measles itself. While many adults reported encountering these claims—ranging from 29 percent to 66 percent depending on the myth—fewer than one in ten adults expressed firm belief that any individual claim was true. However, many respondents remained uncertain, with at least half falling into what KFF described as a “malleable middle” by saying each claim was either probably true or probably false. Adults who regularly used social media or artificial intelligence tools for health information, as well as those without a trusted health care provider, were more likely to endorse vaccine myths.

From the Federal Register
 
The following items appeared in the Federal Register from June 29 to July 10, 2026.
 
Agriculture

• General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan and 47th Biennial Conference
• Organization, Functions, and Procedures; Public Notice and Comment for Standards, Criteria, and Guidance Applicable to Forest Service Programs

Commerce

• Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting

Energy

• Secretary of Energy Advisory Board

Environmental Protection Agency

• Draft Guidance for Reducing Risk From Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) in Biosolids; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Feedback
• Innovation Challenge: Alternatives to Conventional Pesticides for Crop Desiccation; Notice of Availability
• Public Meeting of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
• Revisions To Establish the Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) for Public Water Systems

Executive Office of the President

• Executive Order 14414: Advancing Regenerative Agriculture and Strengthening American Farm Resilience

Health and Human Services

• Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments-Biologics License Application (BLA) 125842 From Capricor, Inc. for Deramiocel (Human Allogeneic Cardiosphere-Derived Cells)
• National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Meeting
• Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting
• Office of the Secretary; Notice of Meeting
• Proposed Collection; 30-Day Comment Request; NIH Information Collection Forms to Support the Genetic Testing Registry (OD)

Interior

• Agency Information Collection Activities; Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI) Competitive Cooperative Agreement Program With State Geological Surveys
• Agency Information Collection Activities; Topographic and Hydrography Data Grants

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

• Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act