SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Authority

This proposed regulation is being issued under the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2991 et seq.), hereafter referred to as the “Act.”

II. Background

The Native American Programs Act of 1974 (NAPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 2991 et seq.), authorizes the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) to promote social development and economic self-sufficiency in Native communities through competitive grant funding. Under Section 803 of NAPA (42 U.S.C. 2991b), ANA provides financial assistance on a single-year or multi-year basis to public and nonprofit private agencies, including governing bodies of Indian Tribes on federal and state reservations, Alaska Native villages and regional corporations established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and public and nonprofit agencies serving Native Hawaiians and Indian and Alaska Native organizations in urban or rural areas that are not reservations or Alaska Native villages. ANA implements its mission through competitive discretionary grants that support Native-led, community-based projects aimed at strengthening families and communities and reducing long-term dependency through social and economic development, Native language preservation, and environmental regulatory enhancement. ANA typically provides short-term “seed” funding ranging from 12 to 60 months to help communities launch or expand sustainable efforts. In Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2025, ANA awarded a total of $50,738,495, which included new awards and continued funding for previously awarded projects. The regulations that implement the NAPA, 45 CFR part 1336, were last amended in 2026 by 91 FR 36756.

III. Executive Summary

This would follow a final rule that was published in June 2026 ( see91 FR 36756) that repealed all of Part 1336 except for five sections. Those five sections now are fragmented and could be streamlined to ease readability and understanding. The five sections that currently remain in regulation are titled: Definitions, Notice of ineligibility, Appeal of ineligibility, Financial and administrative requirements, and Appeals. Many of these sections have language that is duplicative of statute, yet components of the section are not duplicative. Therefore, this rulemaking proposes to remove the language that is duplicative and streamline the remaining text.

Severability

The provisions of this NPRM, if finalized, are intended to be severable, such that, in the event a court were to invalidate any particular provision or deem it to be unenforceable, the remaining provisions would continue to be valid. The changes address a variety of issues relevant to the Administration for Native Americans. None of the provisions contained herein are central to an overall intent of the proposed rule, nor are any provisions dependent on the validity of other, separate provisions.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Changes

Subpart A—Definitions

§ 1336.10 Definitions

Section 1336.10 identifies the definitions that are applicable to part 1336, unless context otherwise requires. This proposal removes the definition for “Economic and social self-sufficiency” as the term is not used in the proposed new part. Further, this NPRM seeks to update the definition of “ANA” as the Administration for Native Americans is no longer under the Office of Human Development Services. Therefore, this proposal would remove that reference while maintaining the remainder of the definition. This rule proposes to also redesignate this section from § 1336.10 to § 1336.1 in accordance with the proposed streamlining of the part. There are no other proposed changes to definitions in this section.

Subpart C—Native American Projects

§ 1336.34 Notice of Ineligibility

Section 1336.34 states the process of notice for an organization if the Commissioner determines them to be ineligible for funding, or the activities proposed by the organization are ineligible. This NPRM proposes to streamline this section by maintaining the requirement that if an organization or activities proposed by an organization are determined to be ineligible for funding, the Commissioner must inform the applicant of this decision and must state the legal and factual grounds for which this decision was made. This NPRM seeks to remove the detailed requirements that state that a copy of part 1336 must be included in that letter, as well as requiring the letter to include the template paragraph that currently exists in regulation. The reason for this proposal is in part to simplify the regulatory text, which does not benefit from including template paragraphs, but also to recognize the fact that the address listed in the current section is no longer the appropriate office of ANA. This rule proposes to also redesignate this section from § 1336.34 to § 1336.2 and retitle it “Notices of ineligibility and appeals” in accordance with the proposed streamlining of the part.

§ 1336.35 Appeal of Ineligibility

Section 1336.35 currently identifies the process that must be followed to appeal a finding of ineligibility for funding. This section is proposed to be removed as the language detailing this appeals process conflicts with the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) procedures which are identified in 45 CFR part 16. To simplify the appeals process and ensure consistency among other ACF programs, we propose to add a new paragraph to proposed section 1336.2 entitled “appeals” (proposed 1336.2(b)) describing that an applicant who has had their application rejected because it has been found ineligible for funding or because the activities it is proposing are ineligible for funding by the Commissioner may appeal the Commissioner's ruling to the DAB following the process identified in 45 CFR part 16.

Subpart E—Financial Assistance Provisions

§ 1336.50 Financial and Administrative Requirements

Section 1336.50 currently describes financial and administrative requirements applicable to grantees. This section is proposed to be streamlined and renumbered as section 1336.3 under the same name. This NPRM seeks to remove current § 1336.50(a) as the regulations identified in this subpart apply regardless of being cited here. HHS accepts that this list may be helpful for grantees to identify which requirements are applicable to them, and if this proposed rule is finalized, intends to provide training ( printed page 65156) and technical assistance to ensure grantees are still aware of applicable regulatory requirements.

Current section 1336.50(b)(1) details that recipients of financial assistance under sections 803, 804, and 805 of the Act must provide a matching share of 20 percent of the approved cost of the assisted project, unless a waiver is attained. This proposed rule removes this section because it is duplicative of 42 U.S.C. 2991b(c). We propose to streamline current section 1336.50(b)(2) by removing unnecessary language while preserving the all core aspects of the regulation and renumbering as § 1336.3(a)(1).

We propose to renumber current section 1336.50(b)(3) as 1336.3(a)(2) and retain in part. The language proposed for deletion is in paragraph (i) which was an overly wordy explanation for why an applicant could request a waiver for the non-Federal matching requirement and is proposed to be replaced with the proper statutory reference. Paragraph (ii) is proposed to be retained, but this NPRM seeks to remove the last two sentences of the paragraph which provide examples of allowable documentation, as opposed to requirements imposed on grantees. Current section 1336.50(b)(4) is proposed to be renumbered to 1336.3(a)(3) with no changes.

We propose to remove current section 1336.50(c)(1) as it does not contain any requirements but rather restates language from section 803(c) of the Act and other parts of the regulation. Paragraph (2) is then proposed to be renumbered as paragraph (1) with a minor edit to add a statutory reference. There are no other proposed changes to the rest of current section 1336.50, other than to renumber as appropriate.

§ 1336.52 Appeals

Section 1336.52 currently identifies the right to appeal decisions to suspend, terminate, or deny funding pursuant to the remedies for noncompliance under 2 CFR 200.339-200.343 and the process for which to do so. We propose to remove this section as the language detailing this appeals and hearing process is duplicative of the DAB procedures which are identified in 45 CFR part 16. To ensure that grantees are still aware of the appeals process, without having to rewrite part 16 in this section, we propose to add a new paragraph to proposed section 1336.2 entitled “appeals” (proposed 1336.2(b)) which describes that a recipient who has had their financial assistance suspended or terminated, or whose non-competing continuation applications for refunding have denied under 2 CFR 200.339 and 200.340 may appeal the ruling to the DAB following the process identified in 45 CFR part 16.

V. Regulatory Process Matters

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., as amended) (PRA), all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval any new or modified reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. This NPRM does not contain any information collections requiring OMB approval under the PRA and, therefore, will not create any new paperwork burdens or modify existing burdens subject to OMB review.

Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 requires federal agencies to consult with State and local government officials if they develop regulatory policies with federalism implications. Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the people. This proposed rule would not have substantial direct impact on the States, on the relationship between the federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This NPRM would not pre-empt State law. The changes proposed in the NPRM are removing unnecessary and obsolete regulations from the Native American Program rules. Therefore, in accordance with Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. HHS believes it is not necessary to prepare a family policymaking assessment because the actions proposed in this NPRM will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.

VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis

We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 14192, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all benefits and costs of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with significant new regulations “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this proposed rule is a significant action under Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small entities. Because this action would simply repeal obsolete and unnecessary language, we propose to certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) generally requires that each agency conduct a cost-benefit analysis; identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives; and select the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule before promulgating any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million (adjusted for inflation) in at least one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Each agency issuing a rule with relevant effects over that threshold must also seek input from State, local, and tribal governments. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $193 million, using the most current (2025) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.

VII. Tribal Consultation Statement

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires agencies to consult with Indian Tribes when ( printed page 65157) regulations have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.” Similarly, ACF's Tribal Consultation Policy says that consultation is triggered for any legislative proposal, new rule adoption, or other policy change that significantly affects Tribes, meaning there exists a reasonable presumption that it has or may have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, on the amount or duration of ACF program funding, on the delivery of ACF programs or services to one or more Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

ACF conducted a Tribal consultation in August 2026, in which a panel on “Reducing Administrative Burden” was hosted. Commenters expressed general support for de-regulation and simplifying of regulatory text. This proposed rule begins another comment period by which we are requesting further input from Tribes on the proposed changes.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, ACF proposes to amend 45 CFR part 1336 as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 1336 continues to read:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 618, 9858 et seq.