The Department of Commerce has proposed a rule to amend its regulations on restrictions on lobbying, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2026. This action seeks to remove two redundant compliance provisions and two obsolete reporting requirements from 15 CFR Part 28. The proposal, docketed as DOC-2026-0001 with RIN 0605-AA73, invites public comments until February 17, 2026. It stems from a review aimed at reducing regulatory clutter and aligning rules with the current form of the underlying statute, 31 U.S.C. 1352, which prohibits using appropriated funds for certain lobbying activities related to federal awards. By streamlining these regulations, Commerce intends to promote administrative efficiency without altering substantive obligations. This development reflects ongoing efforts across federal agencies to modernize rules originally established in 1990, highlighting a balance between transparency in lobbying and regulatory simplification.
Background on Lobbying Restrictions
The regulations in 15 CFR Part 28 implement Section 319 of Public Law 101-121, codified at 31 U.S.C. 1352. This statute, enacted in 1989, restricts the use of federal appropriated funds for lobbying executive or legislative officials in connection with federal contracts, grants, loans, or cooperative agreements. The primary goal is to ensure transparency and accountability through certification and disclosure requirements for entities receiving such federal awards.
Commerce, along with other agencies, adopted these rules via a government-wide interim final rule on February 26, 1990, as published in 55 FR 6735. This was based on guidance from the Office of Management and Budget to create uniform practices. The rules were issued in interim form to meet a statutory deadline, with a subsequent comment period. Over time, legislative changes, notably the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-65), amended the underlying statute by repealing certain reporting mandates. Commerce's current proposal addresses lingering redundancies and obsolete elements in Subpart D (Penalties and Enforcement) and Subpart F (Agency Reports).
Key players include the Department of Commerce's Office of the General Counsel, which led the review, and the Office of the Inspector General, whose reporting duties are affected. The proposal aligns with broader federal initiatives under Executive Order 12866, though deemed not significant, and Executive Order 14192, classifying it as a deregulatory action.
Proposed Changes to Compliance Provisions
Commerce proposes removing Sections 28.405 and 28.410 from Subpart D, as they merely restate statutory text without adding new details. Section 28.405 references the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (31 U.S.C. 3803 et seq.) for imposing penalties, echoing 31 U.S.C. 1352(c)(3). Similarly, Section 28.410 requires agency heads to ensure vigorous implementation, directly repeating 31 U.S.C. 1352(f).
This elimination follows Commerce's policy to avoid duplicating statutes in regulations, reducing the risk of confusion and encouraging direct reference to the law. The proposal notes that these sections provide no elaboration necessary for implementation, thus their removal streamlines the Code of Federal Regulations. Precedents for such actions include similar deregulatory efforts by other agencies, such as updates to OMB guidance post-1995, which emphasized efficiency over redundancy.
From a legal perspective, this maintains all penalties—ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per violation—under Section 28.400, without substantive change. Critics might argue it could subtly reduce emphasis on enforcement, but supporters view it as eliminating unnecessary verbiage, aligning with principles in the Regulatory Flexibility Act certification that no economic impact on small entities occurs.
Elimination of Obsolete Reporting Requirements
The proposal also seeks to remove Subpart F entirely, comprising Sections 28.600 and 28.605. Section 28.600 mandates semi-annual compilations of lobbying disclosures submitted to Congress, a requirement repealed by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. This act centralized reporting through a congressional database, rendering agency-specific reports duplicative and inefficient.
Section 28.605 requires an annual Inspector General report on compliance, also repealed by Public Laws 104-65 and 104-66. This overlaps with broader oversight under the Inspector General Act of 1978, which mandates semi-annual reports on agency issues. The proposal argues that retaining these creates unnecessary burdens, as any lobbying non-compliance can be addressed in existing frameworks.
Politically, this reflects a deregulatory trend, influenced by post-1995 shifts toward centralized transparency. Different perspectives include efficiency advocates praising resource savings, while transparency groups might express concern over potential gaps, though the proposal asserts no diminution of obligations. Evidence from the Federal Register text highlights that the LDA's database offers a 'more efficient and effective mechanism' than fragmented reports.
Implications and Perspectives
Short-term implications include reduced administrative tasks for Commerce, with no new paperwork under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Long-term, it could set a model for other agencies to review similar outdated rules, potentially influencing broader regulatory reform debates.
Legal precedents, such as the 1990 interim rule's uniform adoption, underscore the proposal's consistency with historical practices. Political forces include congressional intent in repealing mandates, balanced against ongoing debates on lobbying oversight amid increasing federal awards. Perspectives vary: proponents see it as modernization, while skeptics might worry about weakened accountability, though the rule affects only internal government processes.
In summary, this proposal eliminates redundancies and aligns regulations with current law, potentially paving the way for similar updates. Next steps involve the comment period, after which Commerce may issue a final rule. Ongoing debates could focus on balancing deregulation with transparency, with challenges including adapting to future statutory changes or ensuring robust enforcement without the removed provisions.
