Rescission of Executive Order 11246 Implementing Regulations

Some commenters supported the rescission of the E.O. 11246 regulations on the grounds that rescission would yield favorable economic effects, including reduced compliance costs and regulatory burdens. Other commenters who opposed rescission contended that

the regulations generated cost savings or produced broader social benefits. The Department notes, however, that it need not justify rescission by weighing the practical or policy effects of eliminating the regulations implementing E.O. 11246. The Department is rescinding these regulations because they can no longer be lawfully maintained following the revocation of E.O. 11246. Moreover, that substantial portions of the regulatory framework are unconstitutional, inconsistent with Federal civil rights statutes, and unsupported by any clear grant of statutory authority provides additional grounds, which on their own support rescission.

An agency must consider and respond to significant comments that it receives during the comment period. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 96 (2015). “Significant comments are those `which, if true, raise points relevant to the agency's decision and which, if adopted, would require a change in an agency's proposed rule.' ” City of Portland, Oregon v. EPA, 507 F.3d 706, 715 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 35 n.58 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). Comments on any other aspect of the merits of the regulations cannot require a change in the result ordained by E.O. 14173's revocation of E.O. 11246. Though not significant, comments related to the benefits and the alleged effects of rescinding the regulations will be discussed below.

Although not determinative of the result, the Department nonetheless concludes that rescission is ultimately beneficial. As explained below, rescinding these regulations reduces regulatory burdens and compliance costs for contractors, with resulting savings passed on to contracting Federal agencies and, ultimately, to consumers and taxpayers. Rescission also eliminates regulatory mandates that required or encouraged race- and sex-based decision-making, promoted racialized frameworks that divided Americans along immutable characteristics, and conflicted with the Nation's commitment to equal treatment under the law. Moreover, the Department finds that the regulations at issue produced no discernible benefits that could justify their continuation and, at best, duplicated existing statutory protections under Federal civil rights law and agency procurement policies. At worst, they impose costly, divisive, and unnecessary requirements that undermine meritocracy and drive social division. 1. Social and Institutional Effects

In evaluating the effects of rescinding the regulations implementing E.O. 11246, the Department begins by considering social and institutional consequences of government-mandated consideration of race and sex in employment decision-making and processes.

Beyond being at odds with the Constitution's equal protection principles, the Department is concerned that government policies that classify individuals by race foster resentment, erodes trust, and weakens shared civic identity that underpins a pluralistic society. Cf. Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943) (“Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.”). The state attorneys general commented that the regulations' affirmative action requirements pit races against each other, instill in the benefited races feelings of inferiority or entitlement, and normalize the notion that race is a proper consideration. The notion that race is a proper consideration can become self-reinforcing. The Department concludes that affirmative action requirements imposed through the E.O. 11246 regulations contributed to these corrosive effects by institutionalizing race- and sex-based classifications in employment decisions across a substantial segment of the American workforce. Such governmental requirements pit groups against one another, intensifying racial tension,\43\ and they reorient workplace decision-making away from individual merit and toward group-based expectations. Rather than reducing racial consciousness, the E.O. 11246 affirmative action regulations heighten it by signaling that race is a relevant and appropriate factor in evaluating workers.

\43\ As with college admissions, employment opportunities “are zero-sum. A benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former group at the expense of the latter.” SFFA, 600 U.S. at 218-19.

These problems are amplified by the arbitrary nature of racial and ethnic categories. See, e.g., SFFA, 600 U.S. at 216-17 (noting that racial categories such as “ `Hispanic,' are arbitrary or undefined.”). In SFFA, when the Supreme Court asked, “how are applicants from Middle Eastern countries classified,” counsel for the University of North Carolina replied that he did not know. Id. The Department would have likewise struggled to provide a well-founded answer to the same question, as individuals of Middle Eastern and North African ancestry were not included in OFCCP's regulatory definition of “minorities.” \44\ See 41 CFR 60-4.3.

\44\ The categories available to contractors were set to change within the next few years. On March 29, 2024, OMB published Revisions to OMB's Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 89 FR 22182. SPD 15 was revised to, among other things, add Middle Eastern or North African (MENA) as a minimum reporting category, separate and distinct from the White category. OMB defined MENA as “Individuals with origins in any of the original peoples of the Middle East or North Africa, including, for example, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, and Israeli.” 89 FR 22191. OMB has set timelines by which federal agencies' information collections that collect race and ethnicity data must be made consistent with the updated standards. Thus, if OFCCP continued to have authority to enforce as to race and ethnicity, it would have incorporated the MENA category into its data collection requirements.

The Department is also mindful of the stigma associated with race- and sex-based employment decisions. Employment systems that rely on numerical goals or benchmarks tied to race or sex may undermine confidence in merit-based outcomes and cast doubt on the achievements of women and minority workers by creating uncertainty as to whether their selections reflect job qualifications or race- and sex-based employment goals. Such goals “stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority.” Adarand Constructors, 515 U.S. at 241 (Thomas, J., concurring). Independent Women agreed that “the credibility of the very individuals those policies aim to support is put in question. Indeed, Americans are less likely to take women and minorities seriously when they believe those individuals were hired to fulfill a quota rather than because of their qualification or abilities.”

Taken together, the Department believes these considerations reinforce the Department's conclusion that rescinding the regulations implementing E.O. 11246 promotes equal treatment under law and advances social cohesion by rejecting race- and sex-based decision-making in employment. Moving away from government-imposed racial classifications and toward neutral, merit-based standards supports workplace fairness and reduces division and conflict. The proposed rescission therefore represents an overdue course correction toward individual dignity and equality under the law. 2. Efficiency of Government Contracting

In the NPRM, the Department noted that rescinding the regulations will improve the efficiency of the Federal

contracting process and decrease employer burden, as contractors will no longer be required to undertake the E.O. 11246 requirements. Some commenters disagreed with this position and asserted that the E.O. 11246 regulations facilitated the adoption of workplace practices that help contractors recruit and retain talent, boost their profitability, and reduce their risk, thereby resulting in efficient and effective performance of government contracts.

The Department disagrees with these comments. Rather than promoting efficient and effective performance of government contracts, the requirements imposed significant and unnecessary burdens on contractors. For example, the AAP requirements set forth at 41 CFR 60- 2.10 alone required contractors to create an organizational profile, conduct a job group analysis, and conduct an availability analysis, among other requirements, on an annual basis. Further, resolving cases under E.O. 11246's framework often resulted in prolonged disputes about the legal sufficiency of the agency's findings and proposed remedies. With these disputes, an E.O. 11246 discrimination case would take, on average, over three years to resolve. Many contractors would also hire legal representatives, consultants, and statistical experts to help resolve these matters, which resulted in greater expenditure of time and money. Even a technical violation allegation--such as a contractor's alleged noncompliance with an affirmative action provision--would average over 14 months to resolve. Based on the cost- benefit analysis in Section IV(B) below, the elimination of these requirements will result in quantified annual savings and benefits of approximately $996.37 million per year.

Many commenters agreed that these burdens were significant and unnecessary. Commenters representing contractors, including Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), generally agreed. ABC emphasized that the regulations implementing E.O. 11246 impose substantial compliance costs on contractors by requiring them to develop, implement, and continuously update detailed AAPs. These costs are ultimately passed on to the Federal government through higher contract prices. ABC further contended that these regulatory requirements operated as a barrier to entry for small businesses that lack the resources to hire specialized consultants, human resources personnel, or legal counsel to maintain compliant AAPs. According to ABC, increases in regulatory burden correlated with declining small-business participation in Federal contracting, reducing competition and driving up prices.

State attorneys general likewise commented that regulations implementing E.O. 11246 “create barriers to entry that newer or smaller market participants cannot surmount” because they “may simply not be sophisticated enough to make it through the complicated maze of affirmative action rules, plans, and audits or cannot afford the additional financial costs associated with compliance.” The Department finds persuasive ABC's evidence that the regulations impose disproportionate burdens on smaller firms, reduce competition for government contracts, and increase costs to the government. The Department expects that rescinding these regulations would increase competition, which could result in cost savings to the government and taxpayers. Other commenters took the opposite view. For example, NWLC asserted that E.O. 11246 and its implementing regulations improve contracting efficiency because they are “critical mechanisms” for ensuring that contractors access a wider pool of talent. The Department disagrees. Contractors have strong incentives to recruit and retain qualified workers from the broadest possible labor pool. The Department finds no persuasive basis for concluding that contractors would otherwise forgo qualified talent absent race- or sex-based employment goals. And commenters have not identified any.\45\

\45\ Unlawful discrimination remains prohibited and subject to enforcement under Federal civil rights statutes and E.O. 14173, which directs contracting agencies to enforce Federal nondiscrimination standards against contractors through the procurement process.

To the contrary, the E.O. 11246 affirmative action regulations diminish the role of merit and job-related qualification in requiring contractors to consider sex- and race-based employment goals and related requirements. E.O. 14398 discusses the inefficiencies of consideration of race and sex as opposed to merit in Federal contractors' personnel decisions and the costs such inefficiencies pass on to the Federal Government.\46\ The Department received over 300 similarly worded comments arguing that the regulations “have long forced federal contractors to make hiring and promotion decisions based on race and sex rather than merit.” One woman who believes she was passed over for promotion based on her race stated that she has “seen many examples of incompetency and rampant costs simply because hiring and contracts were based on race or sex rather than qualifications.” State attorneys general explained that when government mandates require employers to prioritize characteristics such as race or sex-- characteristics unrelated to skills or aptitude--the relative importance of merit-based considerations is diminished, with attendant costs to productivity and efficiency.

\46\ Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors, Sec. 1, 91 FR 16147 (Mar. 31, 2026).

Some commenters, including labor organization and advocacy groups, argued that rescinding regulations requiring contractors to take action to meet race- and sex-based employment goals will result in fewer qualified minorities and women being hired or promoted. The Department disagrees. There are many talented, hardworking women and minority workers who succeed based on their qualifications and merit and would be hired or promoted regardless of whether contractors are subject to race- or sex-based employment goals. As noted above, the existence of race- and sex-based employment goals may undermine the standing of those individuals by calling into question whether their achievements are attributable to merit or to regulatory mandates.

NWLC relied in part on a General Services Administration survey purporting to show positive associations between diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts and workplace well-being. The Department finds this evidence unpersuasive. The survey is based on subjective self-reported responses, and it does not examine the specific regulatory requirements at issue here--namely, compliance with government-imposed race- and sex-based employment goals. It does not provide a reliable basis for evaluating the economic or competitive effects of the E.O. 11246 regulatory framework.

The AFL-CIO further warned that “[w]ith the removal of these procedures, contractors will have a much more complicated and potentially costly regulatory environment where they will need to be compliant with a host of state and local laws instead of the predictable federal requirements.” But E.O. 11246 did not preempt state and local anti-discrimination laws with a common purpose. See Colo. Anti-Discrimination Comm'n v. Cont'l Airlines, 372 U.S. 714, 725 (1963) (“It is impossible for us to believe that the Executive intended for its orders to regulate air carrier discrimination among employees so pervasively as to preempt state legislation intended to accomplish the

same purpose.”). The regulations implementing E.O. 11246 do not displace State or local employment and contracting laws that do not conflict with them, and contractors are required to comply with those laws regardless of whether Federal regulations remain in effect. Moreover, as several state attorneys general explained, the Federal regulatory framework has increasingly conflicted with state law. States including Indiana, Ohio, Florida, and Texas prohibit employers contracting with those states to have race- or sex-based hiring preferences of any sort. Those anti-discrimination provisions conflict with E.O. 11246 regulations that require employers to apply every good faith effort to satisfy race- and sex-based employment goals. As a result, it is the continued existence of E.O. 11246 regulations that creates needless confusion and tension with state law. 3. Effects on Employment Discrimination

Some commenters asserted that rescinding the regulations implementing E.O. 11246 will result in increased employment discrimination against minorities and women by contractors, contending that the enforcement framework established under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is insufficient to deter or remedy such discrimination.

In particular, these commenters argued that E.O. 11246 nondiscrimination regulations are broader in scope and applicability than civil rights laws enacted by Congress. For instance, they noted that Title VII does not apply to small businesses with fewer than 15 employees, whereas the E.O. 11246 nondiscrimination regulations apply to such small businesses, as long as they have more than $10,000 in Federal contracts. Commenters also noted that E.O. 11246 had additional protections compared to Title VII. For example, the E.O. 11246 regulations included more details about what constitutes sex discrimination under the regulations and included sexual orientation and gender identity as protected bases.

As some commenters noted, the E.O. 11246 regulations also prohibit contractors from taking adverse employment actions against applicants or employees who inquire about, discuss, or disclose information about their pay or their co-workers' pay, subject to certain limitations. The E.O. 11246 regulations' administrative enforcement mechanism is also more expedient than Title VII's enforcement framework through the Federal courts, where the defendant has substantially greater rights. These points, however, only reinforce the Department's determination that many aspects of OFCCP's nondiscrimination regulations conflict with Title VII. See Section III(B)(3)(a).

The Federal Government will continue to enforce nondiscrimination requirements outside the Title VII framework through the procurement process. For example, E.O. 14173 directs agencies to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities. Executive Order 14398 requires procuring agencies to ensure that contractors do not engage in unlawful race-based discrimination, placing enforcement responsibility with the contracting agencies themselves rather than OFCCP. Violation of this clause can lead to contract cancellation or debarment. Further, Federal agencies have long enforced nondiscrimination requirements in analogous contexts, including under Title VI for recipients of Federal financial assistance. Agency oversight over their own programs has operated for decades and provides a familiar and workable mechanism for addressing unlawful discrimination. Accordingly, the Department concludes that rescission of the E.O. 11246 nondiscrimination regulations will not weaken protections against unlawful discrimination and will instead align Federal procurement enforcement with established statutory frameworks and principles of agency accountability.

Commenters also noted that while the EEOC investigates charges of discrimination under Title VII, the Department conducted E.O. 11246 compliance evaluations in addition to complaint investigations. During these compliance evaluations, the Department reviewed contractors' records and employment activity data (e.g., pay and hiring data) to determine whether contractors were meeting their nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements. The commenters believed that these compliance evaluations allowed the Department to uncover and remedy discrimination that would otherwise remain undetected.

The Department also received several comments which asserted rescinding the E.O. 11246 regulations' data collection and affirmative action requirements would weaken discrimination protections. Some commenters asserted that these requirements protected all workers, not just minorities and women. Commenters also believed that these requirements ensured that contractors were undertaking proactive, regular analyses of their workplace policies to identify and remedy discriminatory barriers to equal employment opportunity.

The Department carefully reviewed these comments and disagrees with these commenters. First, commenters' concerns about weakening protections and stopping E.O. 11246 compliance evaluations are unfounded. In addition to Title VII, contractors are subject to extensive employment discrimination laws at the local and state level. Further, while the Department conducted compliance evaluations pursuant to the E.O. 11246 regulations, it typically reviewed less than 2% of the contractor universe each year. As a matter of policy, the Department largely limited its compliance evaluations to larger contractors who already fall under Title VII's employee thresholds.\47\ Despite the extensive burden imposed by these compliance evaluations, the Department issued E.O. 11246 discrimination findings in 3% of cases. Even when discrimination was alleged, contractors often disputed the findings, asserting, for example, that the Department failed to adequately account for non-discriminatory reasons for hiring or pay disparities.

\47\ DOL's scheduling methodologies are available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/scheduling/Methodologies. (Per DOL's most recent methodology, “Methodology for Developing the Supply and Service Scheduling List FY 2025, Release--1,” employee count was one of numerous criterion used to determine the eligible pool of contractors. Specifically, for each parent company with at least one contract of $50,000 anywhere in the organization, all U.S. establishments with at least 400 employees and U.S. territories with at least 50 employees were included in the eligible pool of contractors.).

The Department also notes that one of the reasons for rescinding the E.O. 11246 regulations is to ensure that contractors are not using the E.O. 11246 requirements to justify illegal discrimination against workers. While the E.O. 11246 nondiscrimination obligations were designed to cover all protected groups, the regulations required affirmative action regarding only women and minorities. In effect, these requirements induced contractors to create policies and programs designed to account for race and sex in hiring and personnel decisions. In addition to being unlawful, using race- and sex-based preferences diminishes the importance of individual merit when making employment decisions. Several commenters agreed with this position, stating that the E.O. 11246 regulations conflicted with prohibitions against race and sex-based decision making or required contractors to prioritize demographic targets over individual merit and qualifications, ultimately undermining the

foundational American principle of equal treatment.\48\ By rescinding the E.O. 11246 regulations, the Department is restoring merit-based opportunity for the Federal contractor workforce and is ensuring that contractors are not engaging in discriminatory race- and sex-based preferences in their employment processes. Rather than weakening protections, the rescission is ensuring that civil rights protections extend to all workers.

\48\ Note that some commenters were similarly concerned about the impact of the regulations on Federal contracting more broadly, noting concerns about race- and sex-based preferences in awarding contracts. While the E.O. 11246 regulations did contain some pre- award provisions at 41 CFR 60-1.29, DOL's enforcement focused on the nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements for existing contractors.

The Department considered as a regulatory alternative rescinding the affirmative action requirements of the E.O. 11246 regulations while retaining OFCCP-administered nondiscrimination requirements that are consistent with Federal civil rights law and that could be authorized under the Procurement Act's authority to promote economy and efficiency in Federal contracting. Under this approach, OFCCP would have continued to enforce prohibitions on unlawful discrimination through the use of procurement remedies despite the elimination of affirmative action obligations. The Department also considered as an alternative modifying the regulations to state that the utilization goals are purely aspirational and contractors have no obligation to take action to meet race- and sex-based goals.

The Department concludes, however, that these alternatives are not available. Executive Order 14173 expressly revoked E.O. 11246 and withdrew the President's prior sub-delegation of Procurement Act authority to the Department of Labor for enforcement of nondiscrimination requirements in Federal contracting. Because the Department no longer possesses delegated authority under the Procurement Act to generally enforce contractor nondiscrimination obligations, it lacks a lawful basis to retain any piece of the OFCCP- administered nondiscrimination regulatory framework tied to E.O. 11246. Accordingly, partial rescission is not a legally viable alternative.

The Department also considered potential reliance interests implicated by rescission of the E.O. 11246 regulations. But E.O. 11246 has been revoked and there can be no legitimate reliance on authorities that are no longer in force.

To the extent employees and applicants of contractors have a legitimate reliance interest in continued protection from unlawful employment discrimination, that interest is preserved because Title VII provides a comprehensive and well-established framework prohibiting employment discrimination. In addition, E.O. 14173 directs Federal procuring agencies to ensure that contractors do not engage in unlawful discrimination, and those agencies retain authority to enforce nondiscrimination requirements within their respective procurement programs. The Department therefore concludes that rescission will not diminish protections against unlawful discrimination. To the extent any individual may claim a reliance interest in being hired or promoted because of the E.O. 11246 affirmative action regulations, the Department concludes that such an individual has no cognizable reliance interest in having his or her race or sex be a consideration in employment opportunities. 5. Other Comments

The Department received several comments that generally supported or opposed the rescission without providing substantive comments on the proposal. The Department also received a comment requesting guidance on how contractors can comply with E.O. 14173's requirement to certify compliance with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws as well as guidance on how to ensure that employment practices are non- discriminatory. In response, the Department notes that the E.O. 11246 regulations were not promulgated pursuant to E.O. 14173 and that, in any event, compliance with E.O. 14173 is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Some commenters presented alternatives to the rescission, including modifying E.O. 11246 rather than rescinding it altogether or replacing E.O. 11246 with a new Executive Order. The Department also received a comment claiming that the severability clause located at 41 CFR 60-1.48 should allow the Department to maintain the regulations related to pay transparency, despite the Department's proposed rescission of the remaining regulations, as pay transparency is facially neutral on the subjects of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and national origin. The Department declines to adopt these recommendations. With the revocation of E.O. 11246, the Department no longer has legal authority to enforce the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations in their entirety. The pay transparency provisions at 41 CFR 60-1.4(a)(3), 60-1.4(b)(1)(3) and 60-1.35 are also part of this rescission, as they were issued as amendments to the E.O. 11246 regulations.\49\

\49\ The pay transparency regulations were adopted pursuant to an amendment to section 202 of E.O. 11246. 80 FR 54934 (Sept. 11, 2015).

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) asserted that E.O. 11246 and its implementing regulations raised concerns for religious organizations seeking to serve as Federal contractors and subcontractors. Specifically, ADF asserted that many religious organizations' sincerely held beliefs precluded them from complying with certain aspects of E.O. 11246 and its implementing regulations, particularly those related to sex discrimination, sexual orientation, and gender identity. ADF believed that the Department's past rulemaking removed religious organizations' protections to exercise their religious beliefs when it came to personnel decisions and caused confusion about the scope of E.O. 11246's religious exemption provision. ADF also believed that rescinding the regulations would help address these concerns for religious organizations. Although the NPRM did not directly address these issues, the Department agrees that rescinding the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations will address confusion and uncertainty about the scope of the regulations and their alignment with other laws. It is the Department's view that the revocation of E.O. 11246 and the rescission of its implementing regulations eliminate the need for a religious employer exemption from E.O. 11246 in the first place. Since E.O. 11246 regulations no longer have the force of law, religious employers who are contractors do not need an exemption and may continue to exercise their sincerely held religious beliefs in the employment of individuals in their businesses, consistent with existing Federal civil rights law.

Another commenter also suggested that the Department revise its regulatory definition of “minority” at 41 CFR 60-4.3(a)1(d) because it believed that the criteria about who belongs in this group is unclear, specifically as to who belongs to a Hispanic minority group. In response, the Department notes that this definition will be rescinded, as it is part of the E.O. 11246 regulations. To the extent that this definition needs to be revisited in other parts of the agency's

programs, such changes will be addressed separately from this rulemaking.

The commenter also recommended that the Department conduct a review of all rules to ensure compliance with the policy objectives of the current administration. In response, the Department notes that it has and will continue to review its rules for consistency with the policy objectives of the current administration. To the extent that the Department determines that additional regulatory changes are necessary, those changes will be pursued in a separate rulemaking.

Another commenter suggested that the Department reconsider rescinding the UGESP provisions at 41 CFR part 60-3. This commenter believed that UGESP promotes meritocracy in hiring and promotions, as it provides guidelines for determining which practices are job related and consistent with business necessity. In response, the Department notes that 41 CFR part 60-3 will be rescinded in its entirety, as these guidelines are part of the E.O. 11246 regulations. However, as noted in the NPRM and in this final rule, this rescission does not affect other agencies' application and interpretation of the UGESP provisions.\50\

\50\ The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum on June 9, 2026, concluding that the UGESP “embrace an unconstitutional reading of Title VII.” DOJ, Constitutionality of Disparate-Impact Liability Under Title VII, 50 Op. O.L.C. _, at 2 (June 9, 2026). Although the Department relied on different grounds in the NPRM for proposing to rescind part 60-3, namely the revocation of E.O. 11246, the OLC opinion further supports the Department's decision to do so.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. In accordance with E.O. 12866, the Department has determined that this final rule constitutes a “significant regulatory action” because it would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. See E.O. 12866 sec. 3(f)(1). Accordingly, this final rule was submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866. Below is an overview of the Department's regulatory impact analysis conducted pursuant to E.O. 12866.

Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; it is tailored to impose the least burden on society, consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those approaches that maximize net benefits.

Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” was issued on January 31, 2025.\51\ This rule is considered a deregulatory action under E.O. 14192. Using a perpetual time horizon to allow for cost comparisons under that order, the Department estimates that the annualized cost savings amount to $996.37 million in 2024 dollars, using a 7 percent discount rate.

\51\ 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025).

Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), OIRA has designated this rule as a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This final rule rescinds regulations implementing E.O. 11246, consistent with E.O. 14173's revocation of that authority. Executive Order 14173, issued on January 21, 2025, revoked E.O. 11246 in its entirety and provided a 90-day transition period for compliance with existing regulations. That transition period has now expired. The rescission eliminates compliance obligations that previously applied to 107,165 supply and service entities and 9,982 construction contractors, employing approximately 32 million workers. The benefits apply most directly to 9,982 construction contractors and a subset of supply and service contractors (101,850 entities) that meet the affirmative action thresholds (totaling approximately 111,832 contractor entities).\52\

\52\ As noted above, the affirmative action thresholds for non- construction contractors are at least 50 employees and a Federal contract of at least $50,000 and for construction contractors, a Federal contract of more than $10,000 and any number of employees.

In the NPRM, the Department estimated annual cost savings of $996.37 million based on an estimated reduction of 9,875,221 hours related to the E.O. 11246 requirements (e.g., recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance costs). See 90 FR 28477. Commenters, however, identified additional sources of cost savings and related benefits not fully captured in that estimate. For example, some commenters, including ABC and several state attorneys general, asserted that rescission would increase participation among contractors, particularly small and medium-sized entities, thereby enhancing competition and generating downstream cost savings in Federal procurement. Other commenters emphasized difficult-to-quantify benefits, including improved hiring efficiency and productivity gains resulting from a renewed focus on merit-based employment decisions rather than efforts to conform workforces to demographic benchmarks. In light of these comments, the Department recognizes that the benefits of the final rule are likely broader than the quantified NPRM savings alone and, therefore, considers a wider range of economic and operational benefits as illustrative in its final analysis.

The Department maintains its estimate of $996.37 million in quantifiable annual cost savings from reduced compliance burdens, as set forth in the NPRM.\53\ At the same time, the Department believes that the overall cost savings associated with rescission are in all likelihood substantially greater. For example, commenters identified additional categories of economic effects not captured in the paperwork burden estimate, including (1) reduced litigation liability and risk; (2) improved hiring efficiency and labor

productivity; and (3) reduced Federal procurement costs through increased competition.

\53\ Specifically, this final rule estimates $996,373,776 in annual cost savings. This total differs slightly from the NPRM estimate of $996,373,735 due to rounding.

The Department lacks sufficient data to quantify these additional effects with a reasonable degree of confidence. Accordingly, the Department discusses these impacts qualitatively and, where appropriate, provides illustrative calculations based on stated assumptions to convey their potential magnitude.

The only cost of the final rule is rule familiarization, which is likely negligible because the Department has not enforced the regulations for over a year following the revocation of E.O. 11246 in January 2025. Regulated entities have already adjusted their behavior and have no need to review this final rule. a. Need for Regulatory Actions

The rescission of the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations is necessary to implement President Trump's mandate in E.O. 14173, which revoked the E.O. 11246 authority. In addition to E.O. 14173's revocation of E.O. 11246, the Department identified several other reasons for rescinding the regulations, including legal vulnerabilities related to the affirmative action requirements, improving the efficiency of the Federal contracting process, decreasing employer burden, and providing regulatory certainty to contractors and other stakeholders by aligning the regulations with recent executive orders impacting the Department's enforcement. See 90 FR 28472, 28474-28477 (July 1, 2025). b. Regulatory Alternatives

This final rule imposes the least regulatory burden on contractors, as it rescinds all of the E.O. 11246 requirements (see estimated cost savings below). Alternatives include maintaining the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations or rescinding the affirmative action provisions while maintaining the nondiscrimination provisions. The Department considered these alternatives but concluded that these alternatives were not permissible because E.O. 14173 revoked the underlying E.O. 11246 authority in its entirety. Executive Order 14173 also only provided for a 90-day period in which contractors could continue to comply with the current regulatory scheme. See E.O. 14173 at Sec. 3(b)(i). This 90-day period has since passed. For that reason, rescinding the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations is the most appropriate regulatory action, as it aligns the regulations with the agency's legal authority and will provide clarity to stakeholders about their current obligations. c. Baselines

The baseline for this analysis assumes continued compliance with the rescinded regulations, including requirements to prepare and maintain annual AAPs, conduct demographic and statistical analyses, implement compliance-related practices across personnel processes (e.g., hiring, promotion, compensation, and recordkeeping), respond to compliance evaluations, and bear associated legal and operational risks.

The entities affected by the final rule include supply and service contractors, construction contractors, and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors meeting applicable employee and contract dollar thresholds, across a wide range of industries. Compliance burdens are particularly significant for contractors operating multiple entities and for firms with limited administrative capacity relative to fixed regulatory costs.

Affected Universe: The affected universe includes 107,165 supply and service entities and 9,982 construction contractors. Employment at covered entities is estimated at approximately 32 million workers. These estimates are derived from available EEO-1 and USA Spending data.\54\ The benefits apply most directly to 9,982 construction contractors and a subset of supply and service contractors (101,850 entities) that meet the affirmative action thresholds (totaling approximately 111,832 contractor entities). While construction contractors do not develop written AAPs, they are subject to the affirmative action requirements at 41 CFR part 60-4. Our analysis assumes that implementing and documenting these requirements imposes similar burdens as developing and maintaining a written AAP.

\54\ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEO-1 Employer Information Report Statistics, available at https://www.eeoc.gov/data/eeo-1-employer-information-report-statistics (estimates based on available 2020-2022 EEO-1 data); USA Spending Database, available at https://www.usaspending.gov/ (estimates based on 2021-2023 USA Spending data). Following the revocation of E.O. 11246, OFCCP no longer has any use for EEO-1 data.

The rescission of the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations may affect the distribution of Federal contract awards across firms and, correspondingly, employment opportunities across workers. Reducing affirmative action compliance obligations may lower barriers to entry for some firms that were previously deterred from pursuing Federal contracting opportunities due to the costs, administrative complexity, or perceived litigation risks associated with the regulations.

These effects may be especially relevant for smaller firms and firms with more limited human resources, legal, or compliance infrastructure. As ABC and other commenters noted, preparing written affirmative action programs, conducting utilization analyses, maintaining documentation systems, and managing related compliance activities impose proportionally larger fixed costs on smaller entities. Such a pattern is consistent with empirical research finding that fixed regulatory compliance costs disproportionately reduce market participation by smaller firms.\55\ To the extent smaller firms previously elected not to compete for Federal contracts, or limited their participation in covered contracting markets, rescission may increase their willingness or ability to participate in Federal procurement. As a result, some contract awards may shift toward firms that were previously less likely to compete under the E.O. 11246 regulatory framework.

\55\ See, e.g., Shikhar Singla, “Regulatory Costs and Market Power” (2023) (finding that increases in regulatory costs cause small firms to become smaller and large firms to become larger, contributing to increased concentration and reduced small firm participation); U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, “A Troubling Trend” (2023) (documenting an approximately 50 percent decline in the number of small business vendors participating in the Federal marketplace, from roughly 144,000 in FY2008 to between 65,000 and 75,000 by the early 2020s).

Any such shifts could also affect the distribution of employment opportunities among workers employed by participating firms. For example, because minority- and women-owned businesses are disproportionately concentrated among smaller firms, barriers that fall most heavily on small businesses may also disproportionately limit minority- and women-owned enterprises' participation in Federal contracting.\56\ The Department lacks sufficient data to quantify the magnitude of any resulting shifts in

contract awards or employment outcomes.

\56\ See U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Business Survey (2025 release, reporting 2023 business ownership data), available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/abs.html, and U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics (2023), available at https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2023/econ/nonemployer-statistics/2023-ns.html. The data indicate that women-owned and minority-owned firms are disproportionately concentrated within smaller business size classes and among nonemployer businesses.

This final rule rescinds the regulations implementing E.O. 11246, consistent with the revocation of the underlying Executive Order. The Department has examined the economic effects of this action and concludes that the rescission will result in substantial cost savings for contractors, as well as downstream benefits to Federal procurement markets and taxpayers.

The anticipated benefits of the rule go beyond quantifiable PRA- based cost savings for contractors. By eliminating the regulatory burdens of affirmative action requirements, the Department expects to foster increased competition and participation among contractors, particularly benefiting small and medium-sized businesses. This shift is expected to lead to lower Federal contracting costs, improved contractor performance, and a more efficient labor market, ultimately enhancing value for taxpayers while maintaining adherence to essential nondiscrimination laws. 2. Quantifiable Compliance Cost Savings

The July 1, 2025 NPRM estimated that the regulations implementing E.O. 11246 imposed approximately $996.37 million \57\ in quantifiable annual compliance costs, based on an estimated annual time burden of 9,875,221 hours. See 90 FR 28477.

\57\ This final rule estimates $996,373,776 in quantifiable annual cost savings. This total differs slightly from the NPRM estimate of $996,373,735 due to rounding.

The Department retains this estimate in the final rule as a measure of direct, quantifiable compliance costs. Commenters did not dispute the underlying methodology or the resulting estimate. This estimate derives from case data covering FY 2022 through 2024 and reflects the estimated time burden for the regulated community associated with preparing and maintaining written AAPs, demographic and statistical analyses, recordkeeping and reporting obligations, third-party disclosure and data submission requirements, audit response and investigation costs, and monetary remedies associated with conciliation agreements.

In computing the value of contractor time, the Department generally used a fully loaded hourly wage rate of $99.11, which is consistent with prior analyses.\58\ A higher rate of $105.49 per hour is applied to the AAP certification and Functional Affirmative Action Program (FAAP) burdens, consistent with prior analyses.\59\

\58\ The calculations are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics wage estimates of $77.15 per hour for Human Resources Managers and $55.15 per hour for Management Analysts. The calculation uses a 60/ 40 split between Human Resources Managers and Management Analysts, which equals $68.35. Fringe benefits and overhead costs are calculated as 45 percent of wages. $68.35 x 1.45 = $99.11. See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2024, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.

\59\ The AAP certification and FAAP calculations described below assume Human Resources Managers will play a larger role in these compliance activities and use an 80/20 split between Human Resources Managers and Management Analysts, which equals $72.75. Fringe benefits and overhead costs are calculated as 45 percent of wages. $72.75 x 1.45 = $105.49. See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2024, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.

The final rule eliminates requirements applicable to approximately 101,850 covered supply and service contractor establishments.

Recordkeeping. Contractors are no longer required to develop, update, and maintain written E.O. 11246 AAPs. Prior to the revocation of E.O. 11246, first-time contractors (approximately 1,019 annually) spent an estimated 108 hours developing an E.O. 11246 AAP, while existing contractors (approximately 100,832 establishments) spent 47 hours annually updating their programs. All covered establishments also incurred ongoing maintenance burdens (47 hours annually). In addition, contractors with 1 to 14 employees incurred limited recordkeeping obligations under 41 CFR part 60-3 (approximately 1,019 establishments at 2 hours each). In total, rescission eliminates approximately 9,638,144 hours of annual recordkeeping burden, valued at $955,236,452.

Reporting. Historically, OFCCP conducted approximately 845 supply and service compliance evaluations each year. Each such compliance evaluation imposed an estimated 37.5 hours of burden on the contractor to respond to the scheduling letter. Applying a proportional attribution to E.O. 11246 requirements, rescission eliminates approximately 22,182 hours of reporting burden, valued at $2,198,458 annually.

AAP Certification. New contractors (approximately 1,019 annually) previously spent approximately 0.42 hours certifying their compliance with the AAP requirements, while existing contractors (approximately 100,832 establishments) spent approximately 0.13 hours annually recertifying. The final rule eliminates approximately 13,536 hours of burden, valued at approximately $1,427,913 annually (at $105.49 per hour).

Conciliation Costs. Contractors resolving compliance findings through E.O. 11246 conciliation agreements incurred monetary costs. Based on recent agreements, the Department estimates approximately $17,443,922 in annual conciliation-related costs associated with E.O. 11246 requirements that would be eliminated. Additional E.O. 11246 complaint-related conciliation costs are estimated at $104,059 annually.

Complaint Investigations. Approximately 15 E.O. 11246 complaint investigations annually imposed an estimated 192.4 hours of burden per case, resulting in 2,950 hours eliminated, valued at $292,408 annually.

Operating Costs. Paper submission costs associated with supply & service compliance evaluations (copying and mailing) are estimated at $9,603 annually.

Total supply and service contractor cost savings: $976,712,815 annually. b. Construction Contractors

The final rule eliminates compliance requirements applicable to approximately 9,982 construction contractors.

Recordkeeping. Contractors are no longer required to maintain documentation demonstrating compliance with affirmative action obligations, including incorporation of contract clauses, solicitation notices, employment record retention, and compliance with equal opportunity specifications. These changes eliminate approximately 102,875 hours of annual burden, valued at $10,195,941.

Reporting. Compliance evaluation reporting burdens are reduced by approximately 3,660 hours annually, valued at $362,783. In addition, contractors are no longer subject to the construction award notification requirements at 41 CFR 60-4.2, removing approximately 18,125 hours of burden, valued at $1,796,369.

Operating Costs. Paper submission costs associated with construction award notifications and compliance evaluations are reduced by approximately $3,376 annually.

Total Construction Savings: $12,358,469 annually. c. Functional Affirmative Action Program Requirements

The E.O. 11246 regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.1(d)(4) permitted contractors to establish an AAP based on functional or

business units rather than establishments, provided they enter into an agreement with OFCCP on the use of this functional AAP (FAAP) structure. Costs related to entering or renewing these FAAP agreements previously imposed approximately 1,160 hours of burden annually, valued at approximately $122,368. d. Pre-Complaint Inquiry and Complaint Submissions

OFCCP estimates an average of 1,125 annual E.O. 11246 pre-complaint inquiry and complaint intake submissions and estimates that it takes an individual 0.26 hours to provide the intake information. This amounts to 295 total hours eliminated, valued at approximately $15,132. e. Supply & Service and Construction Compliance Evaluations

Compliance Evaluation Investigations. Approximately 56 annual technical violation cases imposed 588.8 hours of additional burden per case, resulting in 33,090 hours eliminated, valued at $3,279,550. And approximately 32 annual discrimination cases imposed 1,238 hours per case, resulting in 39,203 hours eliminated, valued at approximately $3,885,442. f. Total Quantified Compliance Cost Savings

Across all affected parties, based on the above analysis, the Department estimates that the final rule eliminates approximately 9,875,221 hours of annual burden. The 10-year quantifiable cost savings amount to $8,499,270,061 at a 3% discount rate or $6,998,112,173 at a 7% discount rate. Using a perpetual time horizon to allow for cost comparisons under E.O. 14192, the Department estimates that the annualized cost savings amount to $996,373,776 in 2024 dollars, using a 7 percent discount rate.\60\

\60\ This total differs slightly from the NPRM estimate of $996,373,735 due to rounding.

The Department also considered three additional categories of cost savings identified by commenters as illustrative of additional savings: (1) reduced litigation liability and risk; (2) improved hiring efficiency and labor productivity; and (3) reduced Federal procurement costs through increased competition. The Department does not have sufficient data to quantify these effects with precision but nonetheless believes they may be substantial. In the absence of comprehensive data, the Department relies on stated assumptions and provides illustrative estimates based on those assumptions to convey the potential magnitude of these beneficial effects. a. Legal Liability and Litigation Risk Reduction

The affirmative action regulatory regime created exposure to private litigation risk under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and analogous state laws. The Department believes that the required use of demographic classifications, placement goals, and race- or sex- conscious decision-making create additional avenues for legal challenge since these types of actions have been subject to judicial scrutiny and litigation alleging discrimination against non-minority or male employees.

Recent legal developments further increase forward-looking exposure. In SFFA, the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to race- conscious decision-making, and courts and commenters have recognized that similar reasoning may be applied in employment contexts under Title VII and Section 1981. Early post-SFFA litigation and enforcement trends reflect increased challenges to employer diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and race-conscious employment practices. For instance, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Minnesota's race-and sex-based affirmative action laws and regulations, which use similar underutilization analysis and employment goals. Complaint, United States v. Minnesota, case no. 26-cv-00273, Doc. 1 (D. Minn. Jan. 14, 2026).

Industry estimates further suggest that the typical U.S. firm faces approximately a 12 percent probability of being subject to an employment-related lawsuit each year.\61\ The Department lacks sufficient data to quantify the extent to which this rule would reduce litigation risk and costs. Nonetheless, the Department believes the rule may reduce certain categories of litigation exposure and legal uncertainty.

\61\ Hiscox, “Guide to Employee Lawsuits: Employee Charge Trends Across the United States” (2015), at 4.

Commenters, including ABC, Independent Women, and CEI, reported that AAP compliance requirements lengthen hiring workflows by introducing additional procedural steps and documentation obligations, particularly in time-sensitive or deadline-driven occupations where managers would otherwise prefer speed. Commenters also reported that the requirements constrain managerial discretion in candidate selection and internal mobility.

These requirements may impose economic costs through three primary channels:

Extended vacancies, resulting in foregone output or increased reliance on overtime;

Delayed production or project completion, particularly in capital-intensive and project-based operations; and

Labor misallocation, in which hiring frictions or procedural constraints lead to suboptimal worker-job matches and reduced productivity.

To estimate the scale of hiring subject to potential delay, the Department relies on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Job Openings and Labor Turnover Study (JOLTS).

In 2024, the annual average hires rate (hires in a month as a percentage of employment) was 3.4%.\62\

\62\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual average hires rates by industry and region, not seasonally adjusted, available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.t18.htm.

Interpreted on an annual basis, this implies: 0.034 x 12 = 0.408 hires per worker per year.

Applying this rate to covered employment yields: 32,000,000 x 0.408 = 13,056,000 hires annually.

This figure represents the baseline annual flow of hires at covered establishments potentially affected by regulation-induced hiring frictions.

Industry benchmarking indicates that median time-to-fill for non- executive positions is approximately 44 days, with average values above 50 days.\63\ However, AAPs tend to encompass substantive elements that alter contractors' hiring processes. Part 60-2 provides that an AAP is a “management tool” and is “more than a paperwork exercise;” it encompasses policies, practices, and procedures throughout the employment process. Proponents and opponents of written AAP requirements can generally agree that several commonly recommended AAP best practices tend to increase recruiting costs and often lengthen time-to-fill relative to a “post-and-select” process.

\63\ SHRM, “Talent Trends Report, 2025,” available at https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/research/2025-talent-trends.

These practices include: (1) expanding outreach beyond passive job postings to additional sourcing channels (e.g., targeted career fairs and recruitment programs at institutions with more diverse candidate pools,

including HBCUs); (2) relationship-based pipeline development with underrepresented communities; (3) assembling more diverse candidate slates, which may require additional sourcing when initial applicant pools or shortlists are not diverse; (4) increased use of structured interviews, panels, standardized rubrics, and related training for hiring managers; and (5) additional monitoring, self-analysis, and documentation steps associated with written AAP compliance. Each step can add calendar time to a standard hiring workflow.

Indeed, to comply with affirmative action obligations related to E.O. 11246 and prepare for potential OFCCP compliance evaluations, covered contractors are advised to undertake a number of time-intensive activities during recruitment. These include devoting additional time and resources to race-conscious recruitment efforts intended to increase the representation of particular demographic groups in applicant pools.\64\ Before a contractor can start recruiting for a vacant position, they are advised to establish and document basic qualifications for the position and train interviewers on compliance requirements.\65\ During recruitment, contractors are further advised to devote substantial time to tracking and documenting applicant information, consideration decisions, and disposition outcomes at each stage of the process, including for minimally qualified applicants who have little realistic prospect of being hired.\66\ Taken together, these additional steps delay the initiation of recruitment efforts, slow the progression of candidates through the hiring pipeline, and lengthen the overall time required to fill vacant positions.

\64\ See, e.g. Temple University Affirmative Action Program (Nov. 1, 2023), available at: https://_diversity.temple.edu/about-ideal/units/equal-opportunity-compliance/university-policies-resources/affirmative-action?utm_source=chatgpt.com (adverting in publications that target Black and Hispanic audiences).

\65\ See Berkshire, Affirmative Action Planning: How to Ensure a Compliant Recruiting Process (Nov. 16, 2023), available at: https://www.berkshireassociates.com/blog/how-to-ensure-a-compliant-recruiting-process.

\66\ Id.

The Department does not assume that any single practice is required in every hiring decision; rather, the incremental delay estimates reflect the combined effect of compliance-oriented recruiting, screening, documentation, and review practices that E.O. 11246 regulations describe as integral to AAPs, and that contractors report implementing in order to satisfy those requirements in practice. For illustrative purposes, if, in the aggregate, these practices result in just one additional calendar day to fill each of the 13,056,000 annual hires among the approximately one-fifth of the U.S. workforce covered by the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations, there would result in 13,056,000 employee-days of extended vacancies.

To contextualize the magnitude of potential hiring delays, the Department converts median earnings into an implied daily labor value. The median weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary workers are $1,235 in 2026.\67\ Assuming a five-day workweek, this corresponds to an implied daily wage of approximately $247. Under the Department's illustrative assumption that compliance-related hiring practices extend time-to-fill by one additional calendar day for each of the estimated 13,056,000 annual hires at covered establishments, the resulting 13,056,000 employee-days of extended vacancies would correspond to approximately $3.2 billion in delayed labor utilization on an undiscounted basis. This estimate is illustrative and is intended to contextualize the scale of potential delay, rather than quantify a precise economic loss. If hiring delays are shorter or longer than one day, this loss estimate would increase or decrease proportionally.

\67\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers First Quarter 2026 (Apr. 16, 2026), available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf.

Earnings is an intermediate result toward the goal of estimating worker surplus, which is a net value amount that accounts for the opportunity cost of time and effort. Bartik (2013) \68\ estimates such net value to range from 8 to 32 percent of earnings. Based on this finding, we assign a midpoint value of 20 percent to total earnings to quantify the social benefit derived from increased earnings. Applying the 20 percent estimate of societal value to the additional earnings increase of $3.2 billion yields a societal benefit of $654 million annually. Moreover, a benefit accruing to broader society, in the form of taxes collected on the additional earnings, is estimated as 17 percent of those additional earnings, or $548 million annually.\69\

\68\ Bartik, T., “Social Costs of Jobs Lost Due to Environmental Regulations,” Upjohn Institute Working Paper 13-193, Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research (2013); https://doi.org/10.17848/wp13-193. A revised version of this paper has been published as Bartik, T., “The Social Value of Job Loss and Its Effect on the Costs of U.S. Environmental Regulations,” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 9, No. 2 (2015). Illustration of use of estimates from the revised version appears in and near Table 26 of the Food and Drug Administration's Nicotine Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, https://www.fda.gov/media/185035/download?attachment.

\69\ The source for the 17 percent input is https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/639756a60fbe7e51786bcec176ad52f1/Standard-RIA-Values-2025.pdf.

Beyond vacancy duration, commenters, including state attorneys general, claimed that hiring practices that do not focus on merit can reduce match quality. Economic research suggests that mismatches between workers and job requirements can impose meaningful productivity costs. Empirical research on CEO-firm matching finds that mismatches between a firm's needs and the skills of its chief executive officer are associated with large productivity losses: in a sample of approximately 4,800 manufacturing firms across 42 countries, firms that had leaders whose skills were poorly aligned with firm needs exhibited productivity up to 20 percent lower than well-matched firms.\70\ While such extreme outcomes are not assumed here, the evidence indicates that even modest distortions in hiring decisions can impose real economic costs.

\70\ Axel Dahlstrand, David L[aacute]szl[oacute], Helena Schweiger, Oriana Bandiera, Andrea Prat, and Raffaella Sadun, “CEO- Firm Matches and Productivity in 42 Countries,” NBER Working Paper No. 33324 (Jan. 2025), available at https://www.nber.org/papers/w33324.

Public comments similarly described perceived inefficiencies associated with employment decisions based on demographic considerations rather than qualifications. Although these accounts are anecdotal and do not provide systematic evidence, they reflect broader concerns that hiring processes that deemphasize merit may lead to suboptimal worker-job matches and cause productivity losses. The Department does not attempt to quantify these losses but believes that they will be mitigated by this final rule. c. Reduced Competition and Federal Procurement Market Effects

Compliance obligations associated with AAP requirements impose fixed and quasi-fixed costs that do not scale proportionally with firm size. As ABC and other commenters noted, such regulatory costs tend to weigh more heavily on small and medium-sized firms, for which compliance expenses represent a larger share of revenues and managerial capacity. Economic theory and regulatory guidance recognize that such fixed costs can discourage entry and participation by smaller firms and may alter market structure over time.\71\

\71\ Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CircularA-4.pdf.

When OFCCP established the written E.O. 11246 AAP thresholds in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the $50,000 contract threshold and 50- employee threshold were intended to exempt small businesses from detailed AAP requirements while focusing enforcement resources on larger contractors.\72\ However, the E.O. 11246 AAP thresholds have never been adjusted for inflation. A $50,000 contract in 1968--when the contract threshold was first established--would be equivalent to approximately $450,000 in 2024 dollars.\73\ Similarly, a $50,000 contract in 1971--when Revised Order No. 4 formalized the written AAP requirements--would be equivalent to approximately $385,000 in 2024 dollars.\74\ This failure to index the thresholds to inflation has dramatically expanded regulatory coverage over time, bringing many small and medium-sized businesses within the scope of AAP requirements that would have been considered exempt under the original regulatory design.

\72\ Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Revised Order No. 4, Affirmative Action Programs, 36 FR 23152, 23153 (Dec. 4, 1971) (explaining that written AAP requirements apply to contractors “of a specified size” to focus enforcement on larger contractors while recognizing administrative limitations of smaller entities).

\73\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator, available at https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm (converting $50,000 in 1968 to 2024 dollars yields approximately $450,000).

\74\ Id. (converting $50,000 in 1971 to 2024 dollars yields approximately $385,000).

Public comments submitted during the rulemaking process suggest that regulatory burden has contributed to a decline in the number of small business contractors over the past decade.\75\ The Department does not attribute this decline to AAP requirements alone but evaluates how fixed compliance costs may contribute to reduced participation and bidding intensity in Federal procurement markets.

\75\ Comment of Associated Builders and Contractors at 2.

A substantial body of empirical and theoretical research in auction theory and public procurement economics finds that reduced competition leads to higher prices, and that bidder participation is a central determinant of procurement outcomes. McAfee and McMillan (1987) establish in their foundational literature survey that increasing the number of bidders intensifies competition and reduces expected procurement costs across auction formats,\76\ while Klemperer (1999) provides a comprehensive review confirming this relationship holds across diverse auction mechanisms.\77\

\76\ R. Preston McAfee and John McMillan, “Auctions and Bidding,” 25 Journal of Economic Literature 699 (1987).

\77\ Paul Klemperer, “Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature,” 13 Journal of Economic Surveys 227 (1999).

The Department cannot estimate a constant elasticity of price with respect to bidder participation because empirical studies reveal important nonlinear patterns in this relationship. Brannman, Klein, and Weiss (1987) demonstrate in their analysis of timber auctions that the price reduction from adding a second or third bidder substantially exceeds the effect of adding additional bidders beyond that point.\78\ Li and Perrigne (2003) find similar nonlinear competition effects in timber sale auctions.\79\ This body of evidence indicates that preserving competition has the greatest price impact when preventing bidder counts from falling to very low levels. Federal oversight bodies have similarly recognized that small business participation increases bidder counts and competitive pressure in procurement markets.\80\

\78\ Lance Brannman, J. Douglas Klein, and Leonard W. Weiss, “The Price Effects of Increased Competition in Auction Markets,” 69 Review of Economics and Statistics 24 (1987).

\79\ Tong Li and Isabelle Perrigne, “Timber Sale Auctions with Random Reserve Prices,” 85 Review of Economics and Statistics 189 (2003).

\80\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Contracting: Opportunities Exist to Increase Competition and Assess Reasons When Only One Offer Is Received, GAO-10-833 (2010).

In recent fiscal years, total Federal contract obligations have averaged approximately $750 billion annually.\81\ Federal law establishes a goal that 23 percent of Federal contract obligations be awarded to small businesses.\82\ This yields an affected procurement volume of approximately $172.5 billion per year in markets where small and medium-sized firms are plausible competitors.

\81\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Government Contracting: FY 2024 Snapshot, GAO-25-105538 (2024).

\82\ Small Business Administration, Small Business Procurement Scorecard (2024), available at https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-data/small-business-procurement-scorecard.

To the extent that fixed compliance costs reduce small business participation in Federal contracting, procurement prices may increase through reduced competitive pressure. Given the nonlinear relationship between bidder participation and prices documented in the empirical literature, even modest reductions in competition among marginal bidders can generate measurable price effects. 4. Costs of the Final Rule; Rule Familiarization Costs

The Department expects that Human Resources Managers or Management Analysts at each contractor establishment may spend time becoming familiar with the provisions in the final rule. The Department estimates that it will take one hour for a Human Resources Manager or Management Analyst to read the final rule. This estimate likely overstates the actual burden of rule familiarization. Since the revocation of E.O. 11246 in January 2025, the Department has ceased enforcing the regulations. As a result, this final rule largely maintains the status quo, and in many cases may not require any review by regulated entities.

The Department estimates an average hourly wage rate of $99.11 based on a 60/40 split between Human Resources Managers ($77.15) and Management Analysts ($55.15), resulting in an average hourly wage of $68.35. The Department applies a 45 percent rate for fringe benefits and overhead costs, leading to a total hourly wage rate of $99.11 (= $68.35 x 1.45).\83\

\83\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2024 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (reporting mean hourly wage of $77.15 for Human Resources Managers (SOC 11-3121) and $55.15 for Management Analysts (SOC 13-1111)). The blended rate applies a 60/40 weighting to these occupations, yielding a weighted average hourly wage of $68.35. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, December 2024, available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.toc.htm (fringe benefits and overhead costs equal 45 percent of wages). Loaded blended rate: $68.35 x 1.45 = $99.11.

Consequently, the estimated burden for rule familiarization is 117,147 hours (= 107,165 supply and service establishments + 9,982 construction contractors x 1 hour). The total estimated cost is $11,610,439 (= 117,147 hours x $99.11/hour) in the first year. Over the 10-year analysis period, the annualized rule familiarization costs are estimated at:

$1.3 million at a discount rate of 3 percent

$1.5 million at a discount rate of 7 percent

The Department does not anticipate significant adjustment costs beyond rule familiarization, as rescission eliminates obligations rather than imposing new requirements. Contractors may choose to maintain certain employment practices previously undertaken for AAP compliance, but such practices would be voluntary and presumably

maintained only where contractors judge them to be cost-effective. 5. Net Benefits and Distribution

The Department estimates quantifiable cost savings of approximately $996.37 million annually from reduced paperwork and compliance burdens. Over a 10-year period, these savings are estimated at $8.5 billion using a 3 percent discount rate and $7.0 billion using a 7 percent discount rate. As discussed above, this estimate likely understates total compliance-related cost savings. In addition, the Department provides illustrative estimates of further economic benefits associated with rescission.

Costs associated with this rule are limited to rule familiarization, which the Department estimates at a one-time cost of $11.6 million. Annualized over a 10-year period, these costs are approximately $1.3 million at a 3 percent discount rate and $1.5 million at a 7 percent discount rate.

Overall, the Department concludes that the rule will generate substantial net benefits, even when considering only quantifiable savings, with additional unquantified benefits reinforcing this conclusion.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Department reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Department has determined that a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required because this rule is not expected to have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Act directs agencies, where such impacts exist, to consider steps “to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes,” 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(6), reflecting Congress's concern with regulatory compliance burdens imposed on small entities. Cf. Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (explaining that “the costs of compliance with uniform regulations to small businesses were the focus of congressional concern”). “Congress envisioned that the relevant `economic impact' was the impact of compliance with the [agency's] rule on regulated small entities.” Id. at 348.

This final rule has no compliance impacts on small entities and instead rescinds existing regulatory burdens, thereby eliminating associated reporting, recordkeeping, compliance, and administrative costs. Small entities, including small Federal contractors and subcontractors, within the scope of the rescinded requirements may experience economic effects from this rule. However, those effects are expected to be beneficial due to burdens and barriers to participation being eliminated. Because the rule does not impose compliance obligations or associated costs of the type the RFA is designed to address and that agencies must take steps to “minimize,” the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., includes minimizing the paperwork burden on affected entities. The PRA requires certain actions before an agency can adopt or revise a collection of information, including publishing for public comment a summary of the collection of information and a brief description of the need for and proposed use of the information.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This activity helps to ensure that the public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.

A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The public is also not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person will be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number. See 44 U.S.C. 3512.

To comply with E.O. 14173, the Department modified OMB # 1250-0002, “Complaint Involving Employment Discrimination by a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor.” \84\ The modifications removed E.O. 11246 elements from the agency's pre-complaint inquiry and complaint forms. The information collection still covers complaints under Section 503 and VEVRAA.

\84\ Following the revocation of E.O. 11246, the Department sought emergency approval from OMB to remove items related to E.O. 11246 from OFCCP's pre-complaint inquiry and complaint forms. OMB approved the request on July 2, 2025. The Department also responded to public comments on the changes and received OMB approval for the revised collection on Feb. 23, 2026. See 91 FR 168 (Jan. 2, 2026); Notice of Action at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202512-1250-001.

This final rule ensures compliance with E.O. 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which directs OFCCP within the Department to immediately cease promoting “diversity,” holding Federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking “affirmative action,” and allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin. This final rule also ensures compliance with E.O. 14398, “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors.” E.O. 14398 prohibits contractors from racial discrimination in connection with work performed on contracts and places enforcement responsibility with procuring agencies rather than with the Department. This final rule is also consistent with E.O. 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which directs Federal agencies to modify regulations or policies that use the terms “gender” and “gender identity.” This final rule also aligns with E.O. 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” which directs Federal agencies to deprioritize enforcement of all statutes and regulations to the extent they include disparate impact liability. Further, it supports the objectives of E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” E.O. 14275, “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement,” E.O. 14267, “Reducing Anti- Competitive Regulatory Barriers,” and Presidential Memorandum, “Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations,” \85\ by alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens, amending the Federal Acquisition Regulations to ensure they contains only provisions required by statute or are otherwise necessary to support simplicity and usability, strengthen the efficacy of the procurement system, or protect economic or national security interests, and removing regulatory requirements that could have created barriers to entry for contractors who are new market participants. This final rule

is designated as an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

\85\ Presidential Memorandum on Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations, 2025 Daily Comp. Pres. Doc. 466 (Apr. 9, 2025).

41 CFR Part 60-1

Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Employment, Equal employment opportunity, Government contracts, Government procurement, Investigations, Labor, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

41 CFR Part 60-2

Equal employment opportunity, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

41 CFR Part 60-3

Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Employment, Equal employment opportunity, Government contracts, Government property, Government property management, Individuals with disabilities, Labor, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.

41 CFR Part 60-4

Construction industry, Equal employment opportunity, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

41 CFR Part 60-20

Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity, Government procurement, Labor, Sex discrimination, Women.

41 CFR Part 60-30

Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity, Government contracts, Government procurement, Government property management, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.

41 CFR Part 60-40

Freedom of information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

41 CFR Part 60-50

Equal employment opportunity, Government procurement, Religious discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

41 CFR Part 60-999

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of E.O. 14173, 90 FR 8633 (Jan. 31, 2025), the Department amends chapter 60 in title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 60--1 [REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0 1. Under the authority of E.O. 14173, remove and reserve 41 CFR Part 60-1.

PART 60--2 [REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0 2. Under the authority of E.O. 14173, remove and reserve 41 CFR Part 60-2.

PART 60--3 [REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0 3. Under the authority of E.O. 14173, remove and reserve 41 CFR Part 60-3.

PART 60--4 [REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0 4. Under the authority of E.O. 14173, remove and reserve 41 CFR Part 60-4.

PART 60--20 [REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0 5. Under the authority of E.O. 14173, remove and reserve 41 CFR Part 60-20.

0 6. Revise 41 CFR Part 60-30 to read as follows:

PART 60-30--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

Sec. 60-30.1 Applicability of this part.

This part provides the rules of practice for all administrative proceedings instituted by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), including but not limited to proceedings instituted against construction contractors or subcontractors, which relate to the enforcement of equal opportunity under the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA), as amended, and section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (section 503), as amended. In the absence of a specific provision, procedures shall be in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Sec. 60-30.2 Waiver, modification.

Upon notice to all parties, the Administrative Law Judge may, with respect to matters pending before him, modify or waive any rule herein upon a determination that no party will be prejudiced and that the ends of justice will be served thereby.

Sec. 60-30.3 Computation of time.

In computing any period of time under this part or in an order issued hereunder, the time begins with the day following the act, event, or default, and includes the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday observed by the Federal Government in which event it includes the next business day.

Sec. 60-30.4 Form, filing, service of pleadings and papers.

(a) Form. The original of all pleadings and papers in a proceeding conducted under the regulations in this part shall

be filed with the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the case or with the Chief Administrative Law Judge if the case has not been assigned. Every pleading and paper filed in the proceeding shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the agency instituting the proceeding, the title of the action, the case file number assigned by the Administrative Law Judge, and a designation of the pleading or paper (e.g., complaint, motion to dismiss, etc.). The pleading or papers shall be signed and shall contain the address and telephone number of the person representing the party or the person on whose behalf the pleading or paper was filed. Unless otherwise ordered for good cause by the Administrative Law Judge regarding specific papers and pleadings in a specific case, all such papers and pleadings are public documents.

(b) Service. Service upon any party shall be made by the party filing the pleading or document in accordance with 29 CFR part 26. When a party is represented by an attorney, the service shall be upon the attorney.

(c) Proof of service. A certificate of the person serving the pleading or other document, setting forth the manner of service, shall be proof of the service.

Sec. 60-30.5 Administrative complaint.

(a) Filing. The Solicitor of Labor, Associate Solicitor for Labor Relations and Civil Rights Regional Solicitors and Regional Attorney upon referral from OFCCP, are authorized to institute enforcement proceedings by filing a complaint and serving the complaint upon the contractor which shall be designated as the defendant. The Department of Labor, OFCCP, shall be designated as the plaintiff.

(b) Contents. The complaint shall contain a concise jurisdictional statement, and a clear and concise statement sufficient to put the defendant on notice of the acts or practices it is alleged to have committed in violation of the order, the regulations, or its contractual obligations. The complaint shall also contain a prayer regarding the relief being sought, a statement of whatever sanctions the Government will seek to impose and the name and address of the attorney who will represent the Government.

(c) Amendment. The complaint may be amended once as a matter of course before an answer is filed, and the defendant may amend its answer once as a matter of course not later than 10 days after the filing of the original answer. Other amendments of the complaint or of the answer to the complaint shall be made only by leave of the Administrative Law Judge or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given where justice so requires. An amended complaint shall be answered within 14 days of its service, or within the time for filing an answer to the original complaint, whichever period is longer. An amended answer shall be responded to within 14 days of its service.

Sec. 60-30.6 Answer.

(a) Filing and service. Within 20 days after the service of the complaint, the defendant shall file an answer with the Chief Administrative Law Judge if the case has not been assigned to an Administrative Law Judge. The answer shall be signed by the defendant or its attorney, and served on the Government in accordance with Sec. 60-30.4(b).

(b) Contents; failure to file. (1) The answer shall:

(i) Contain a statement of the facts which constitute the grounds of defense, and shall specifically admit, explain, or deny, each of the allegations of the complaint unless the defendant is without knowledge, in which case the answer shall so state; or

(ii) State that the defendant admits all the allegations of the complaint.

(2) The answer may contain a waiver of hearing; and if not, a separate paragraph in the answer shall request a hearing.

(3) The answer shall contain the name and address of the defendant, or of the attorney representing the defendant.

(4) Failure to file an answer or to plead specifically to any allegation of the complaint shall constitute an admission of such allegation.

(c) Procedure, upon admission of facts. The admission, in the answer or by failure to file an answer, of all the material allegations of fact contained in the complaint shall constitute a waiver of hearing. Upon such admission, the Administrative Law Judge, without further hearing, may prepare his decision in which he shall adopt as his proposed findings of fact the material facts alleged in the complaint. The parties shall be given an opportunity to file exceptions to his decision and to file briefs in support of the exceptions.

Sec. 60-30.7 Notice of prehearing conference.

The Administrative Law Judge shall respond to defendant's request for a hearing within 15 days and shall serve a notice of prehearing conference on the parties. The notice shall contain the time and place of the conference.

Sec. 60-30.8 Motions; disposition of motions.

(a) Motions. Motions shall state the relief sought, the authority relied upon and the facts alleged, and shall be filed with the Administrative Law Judge. If made before or after the hearing itself, the motions shall be in writing. If made at the hearing, motions may be stated orally; but the Administrative Law Judge may require that they be reduced to writing and filed and served on all parties in the same manner as a formal motion. Unless otherwise ordered by the Administrative Law Judge, written motions shall be accompanied by a supporting memorandum. Within 10 days after a written motion is served, or such other time period as may be fixed, any party may file a response to a motion.

(b) Disposition of motions. The Administrative Law Judge may not grant a written motion prior to expiration of the time for filing responses thereto, except upon consent of the parties or following a hearing, but may overrule or deny such motion without awaiting response: Provided, That prehearing conferences, hearings, and decisions need not be delayed pending disposition of motions.

Sec. 60-30.9 Interrogatories, and admissions as to facts and documents.

(a) Interrogatories. Not later than 25 days prior to the date of the hearing, except for good cause shown, or not later than 14 days prior to such earlier date as the Administrative Law Judge may order, any party may serve upon an opposing party written interrogatories. Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless objected to. Answers are to be signed by the person making them and objections by the attorney or by whoever is representing the party. Answers and objections shall be filed and served within 25 days of service of the interrogatory.

(b) Admissions. Not later than 14 days prior to the date of the hearing, except for good cause shown, or not later than 14 days prior to such earlier date as the Administrative Law Judge may order, any party may serve upon an opposing party a written request for the admission of the genuineness and authenticity of any relevant documents described in and exhibited with the request, or for the admission of the truth of any relevant matters of fact stated in the request. Each of the matters as to which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted, unless within 25 days after service, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the requesting party a sworn statement either:

(1) Denying specifically the matter as to which an admission is requested; or

(2) Setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny such matters.

(c) Objections or failures to respond. The party submitting the interrogatory or request may move for an order with respect to any objection or other failure to respond.

Sec. 60-30.10 Production of documents and things and entry upon land for inspection and other purposes.

(a) After commencement of the action, any party may serve on any other party a request to produce and/or permit the party, or someone acting on his behalf, to inspect and copy any unprivileged documents, phonorecords, and other compilations, including computer tapes and printouts which contain or may lead to relevant information and which are in the possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the request is served. If necessary, translation of data compilations shall be done by the party furnishing the information.

(b) After commencement of the action, any party may serve on any other party a request to permit entry upon designated property which may be relevant to the issues in the proceeding and, which is in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is served for the purpose of inspection, measuring, surveying or photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or area.

(c) Each request shall set forth with reasonable particularity the items to be inspected and shall specify a reasonable time and place for making the inspection and performing the related acts.

(d) The party upon whom the request is served shall respond within 25 days after the service of the request. The response shall state, with respect to each item, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless there are objections, in which case the reasons for each objection shall be stated. The party submitting the request may move for an order with respect to any objection or to other failure to respond.

Sec. 60-30.11 Depositions upon oral examination.

(a) Depositions; notice of examination. After commencement of the action, any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, having personal or expert knowledge of the matters in issue, by deposition upon oral examination. A party desiring to take a deposition shall give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to the proceeding, and may use an administrative subpoena. The notice shall state the time and place for taking the deposition and the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and, if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify him or the particular class or group to which he belongs. The notice shall also set forth the categories of documents the witness is to bring with him to the deposition, if any. A copy of the notice shall be furnished to the person to be examined unless his name is unknown.

(b) Production of witnesses; obligation of parties; objections. It shall be the obligation of each party to produce for examination any person, along with such documents as may be requested, at the time and place, and on the date, set forth in the notice, if that party has control over such person. Each party shall be deemed to have control over its officers, agents, employees, and members. Unless the parties agree otherwise, depositions shall be held within the county in which the witness resides or works. The party or prospective witness may file with the Administrative Law Judge an objection within 5 days after notice of production of such witness is served, stating with particularity the reasons why the party cannot or ought not to produce a requested witness. The party serving the notice may move for an order with respect to such objection or failure to produce a witness. All errors or irregularities in compliance with the provisions of this section shall be deemed waived unless a motion to suppress the deposition or some part thereof is made with reasonable promptness after such defect is or, with due diligence, might have been ascertained.

(c) Before whom taken; scope of examination; failure to answer. Depositions may be taken before any officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the United States or of the place where the deposition is held. At the time and place specified in the notice, each party shall be permitted to examine and cross-examine the witness under oath upon any matter which is relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding, or which is reasonably calculated to lead to the production of relevant and otherwise admissible evidence. All objections to questions, except as to the form thereof, and all objections to evidence are reserved until the hearing. A refusal or failure on the part of any person under the control of a party to answer a question shall operate to create a presumption that the answer, if given, would be unfavorable to the controlling party, unless the question is subsequently ruled improper by the Administrative Law Judge or the Administrative Law Judge rules that there was valid justification for the witness' failure or refusal to answer the question: Provided, That the examining party shall note on the record during the deposition the question which the deponent has failed, or refused to answer, and state his intention to invoke the presumption if no answer is forthcoming.

(d) Subscription; certification; filing. The testimony shall be reduced to typewriting, either by the officer taking the deposition or under his direction, and shall be submitted to the witness for examination and signing. If the deposition is not signed by the witness because he is ill, dead, cannot be found, or refuses to sign it, such fact shall be noted in the certificate of the officer and the deposition may then be used as fully as though signed. The officer shall immediately deliver the original copy of the transcript, together with his certificate, in person or by mail to the Administrative Law Judge. Copies of the transcript and certificate shall be furnished to all persons desiring them, upon payment of reasonable charges, unless distribution is restricted by order of the Administrative Law Judge for good cause shown.

(e) Rulings on admissibility; use of deposition. Subject to the provisions of this section, objection may be made at the hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying. Any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible in the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice, in accordance with the following provisions:

(1) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness.

(2) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent, or was designated to testify on behalf of a public or private corporation, partnership, association, or governmental agency which is a party may be used by the adverse party for any purpose.

(3) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the Administrative Law Judge finds:

(i) That the witness is dead; or

(ii) That the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, illness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or

(iii) That the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or

(iv) Upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable to allow the deposition to be used.

(4) If only part of a deposition is introduced in evidence by a party, any party may introduce any other parts by way of rebuttal and otherwise.

(f) Stipulations. If the parties so stipulate in writing, depositions may be taken before any person at any time or place, upon any notice and in any manner, and when so taken may be used like other depositions.

Sec. 60-30.12 Prehearing conferences.

(a) Upon his own motion or the motion of the parties, the Administrative Law Judge may direct the parties or their counsel to meet with him for a conference to consider:

(1) Simplification of the issues;

(2) Necessity or desirability of amendments to pleadings for purposes of clarification, simplification, or limitation;

(3) Stipulations, admissions of fact and of contents and authenticity of documents;

(4) Limitation of number of witnesses;

(5) Scheduling dates for the exchange of witness lists and of proposed exhibits; and

(6) Such other matters as may tend to expedite the disposition of the proceedings.

(b) The record shall show the matters disposed of by order and by agreement in such pretrial conferences. The subsequent course of the proceeding shall be controlled by such action.

Sec. 60-30.13 Consent findings and order.

(a) General. At any time after the issuance of a complaint and prior to or during the reception of evidence in any proceeding, the parties may jointly move to defer the receipt of any evidence for a reasonable time to permit negotiation of an agreement containing consent findings and an order disposing of the whole or any part of the proceeding. The allowance of such deferment and the duration thereof shall be in the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge after consideration of the nature of the proceeding, the requirements of the public interest, the representations of the parties, and the probability of an agreement being reached which will result in a just disposition of the issues involved.

(b) Content. Any agreement containing consent findings and an order disposing of a proceeding shall also provide:

(1) That the order shall have the same force and effect as an order made after full hearing;

(2) That the entire record on which any order may be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement;

(3) That any further procedural steps are waived; and

(4) That any right to challenge or contest the validity of the findings and order entered into in accordance with the agreement is waived.

(c) Submission. On or before the expiration of the time granted for negotiations, the parties or their counsel may:

(1) Submit the proposed agreement to the Administrative Law Judge for his consideration; and

(2) Inform the Administrative Law Judge that agreement cannot be reached.

(d) Disposition. In the event an agreement containing consent findings and an order is submitted within the time allowed, the Administrative Law Judge, within 30 days, shall accept such agreement by issuing his decision based upon the agreed findings, and his decision shall constitute the final Administrative order.

Sec. 60-30.14 Designation of Administrative Law Judges.

Hearings shall be held before an Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Labor who shall be designated by the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Labor. After commencement of the proceeding but prior to the designation of an Administrative Law Judge, pleadings and papers shall be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge.

Sec. 60-30.15 Authority and responsibilities of Administrative Law Judges.

The Administrative Law Judge shall propose findings and conclusions to the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) on the basis of the record. In order to do so, he shall have the duty to conduct a fair hearing, to take all necessary action to avoid delay, and to maintain order. He shall have all powers necessary to those ends, including, but not limited to, the power to:

(a) Hold conferences to settle, simplify, or fix the issues in a proceeding, or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the proceeding by consent of the parties or upon his own motion;

(b) Require parties to state their position with respect to the various issues in the proceeding;

(c) Require parties to produce for examination those relevant witnesses and documents under their control; and require parties to answer interrogatories and requests for admissions in full;

(d) Administer oaths;

(e) Rule on motions, and other procedural items or matters pending before him;

(f) Regulate the course of the hearing and conduct of participants therein;

(g) Examine and cross-examine witnesses, and introduce into the record documentary or other evidence;

(h) Receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence and limit lines of questioning or testimony which are irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious;

(i) Fix time limits for submission of written documents in matters before him and extend any time limits established by this part upon a determination that no party will be prejudiced and that the ends of justice will be served thereby;

(j) Impose appropriate sanctions against any party or person failing to obey an order under this part which may include:

(1) Refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting it from introducing designated matters in evidence;

(2) Excluding all testimony of an unresponsive or evasive witness, or determining that the answer of such witness, if given, would be unfavorable to the party having control over him; and

(3) Expelling any party or person from further participation in the hearing;

(k) Take official notice of any material fact not appearing in evidence in the record, which is among the traditional matters of judicial notice;

(l) Recommend whether the respondent is in current violation of the order, regulations, or its contractual obligations, as well as the nature of the relief necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights secured by the order;

(m) Issue subpoenas; and

(n) Take any action authorized by this part.

Sec. 60-30.16 Appearances.

(a) Representation. The parties or other persons or organizations participating pursuant to this part have the right to be represented by counsel.

(b) Failure to appear. In the event that a party appears at the hearing and no party appears for the opposing side, the party who is present shall have an

election to present his evidence in whole or such portion thereof sufficient to make a prima facie case before the Administrative Law Judge. Failure to appear at the hearing shall not be deemed to be a waiver of the right to be served with a copy of the Administrative Law Judge's recommended decision and to file exceptions to it.

Sec. 60-30.17 Appearance of witnesses.

(a) A party wishing to procure the appearance at the hearing of any person having personal or expert knowledge of the matters in issue shall serve on the prospective witness a notice, which may be accomplished by an administrative subpoena, setting forth the time, date, and place at which he is to appear for the purpose of giving testimony. The notice shall also set forth the categories of documents the witness is to bring with him to the hearing, if any. A copy of the notice shall be filed with the Administrative Law Judge and additional copies shall be served upon the opposing parties.

(b) It shall be the obligation of each party to produce for examination any person, along with such documents as may be requested, at the time and place, and on the date, set forth in the notice, if that party has control over such person. Each party shall be deemed to have control over its officers, agents, employees, and members. Due regard shall be given to the convenience of witnesses in scheduling their testimony so that they will be detained no longer than reasonably necessary.

(c) The party or prospective witness may file an objection within 5 days after notice of production of such witness is served stating with particularity the reasons why the party cannot produce a requested witness. The party serving the notice may move for an order with respect to such objection or failure to produce a witness.

Sec. 60-30.18 Rules of evidence.

In any hearing, decision, or administrative review conducted pursuant to this part, all evidentiary matters shall be governed by Office of Administrative Law Judges' Rules of evidence at 29 CFR part 18, subpart B.

Sec. 60-30.19 Objections; exceptions; offer of proof.

(a) Objections. If a party objects to the admission or rejection of any evidence or to the limitation of the scope of any examination or cross-examination or the failure to limit such scope, he shall state briefly the grounds for such objection. Rulings on all objections shall appear in the record. Only objections made on the record may be relied upon subsequently in the proceedings.

(b) Exceptions. Formal exception to an adverse ruling is not required. Rulings by the Administrative Law Judge shall not be appealed prior to the transfer of the case to the Secretary, but shall be considered by the Secretary upon filing exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's recommendations and conclusions.

(c) Offer of proof. An offer of proof made in connection with an objection taken to any ruling excluding proffered oral testimony shall consist of a statement of the substance of the evidence which counsel contends would be adduced by such testimony; and, if the excluded evidence consists of evidence in written form or consists of reference to documents, a copy of such evidence shall be marked for identification and shall accompany the record as the offer of proof.

Sec. 60-30.20 Ex parte communications.

The Administrative Law Judge shall not consult any person, or party, on any fact in issue unless upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. No employee or agent of the Federal Government engaged in the investigation and prosecution of this case shall participate or advise in the rendering of the recommended or final decision in the case, except as witness or counsel in the proceeding.

Sec. 60-30.21 Oral argument.

Any party shall be entitled upon request to a reasonable period between the close of evidence and termination of the hearing for oral argument. Oral arguments shall be included in the official transcript of the hearing.

Sec. 60-30.22 Official transcript.

The official transcripts of testimony taken, together with any exhibits, briefs, or memorandums of law, shall be filed with the Administrative Law Judge. Transcripts of testimony may be obtained from the official reporter by the parties and the public as provided in section 11(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (86 Stat. 770). Upon notice to all parties, the Administrative Law Judge may authorize such corrections to the transcript as are necessary to reflect accurately the testimony.

Sec. 60-30.23 Summary judgment.

(a) For the Government. At any time after the expiration of 20 days from the commencement of the action, or after service of a motion for summary judgment by the respondent, the Government may move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment upon all claims or any part.

(b) For defendant. The defendant may, at any time after commencement of the action, move with or without supporting affidavits for summary judgment in its favor as to all claims or any part.

(c) Other parties. Any other party to a formal proceeding under this part may support or oppose motions for summary judgment made by the Government or respondent, in accordance with this section, but may not move for a summary judgment in his own behalf.

(d) Statement of uncontested facts. All motions for summary judgment shall be accompanied by a “Statement of Uncontested Facts” in which the moving party sets forth all alleged uncontested material facts which shall provide the basis for its motion. At least 5 days prior to the time fixed for hearing on the motion, any party contending that any material fact regarding the matter covered by the motion is in dispute, shall file a “Statement of Disputed Facts.” Failure to file a “Statement of Disputed Facts” shall be deemed as an admission to the “Statement of Uncontested Facts.”

(e) Motion and proceedings. The motion shall be served upon all parties at least 15 days before the time fixed for the hearing on the motion. The adverse party or parties may serve opposing affidavits prior to the day of hearing. The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the complaint and answer, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment rendered for or against the Government or the respondent shall constitute the findings and recommendations on the issues involved. Hearings on motions made under this section shall be scheduled by the Administrative Law Judge.

(f) Case not fully adjudicated on motion. If on motion under this section judgment is not rendered upon the whole case or for all the relief asked and a final hearing is necessary, the Administrative Law Judge at the hearing of the motion, by examining the notice and answer and the evidence before him and by interrogating counsel, shall, if practicable, ascertain what material facts exist without substantial controversy and what material facts are actually and in good faith controverted. He shall thereupon make an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy, including the extent to which relief is not in controversy, and directing such further

proceedings as are just. At the hearing on the merits, the facts so specified shall be deemed established, and the final hearing shall be conducted accordingly.

Sec. 60-30.24 Participation by interested persons.

(a)(1) To the extent that proceedings hereunder involve employment of persons covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and compliance may necessitate a revision of such agreement, any labor organization which is a signatory to the agreement shall have the right to participate as a party.

(2) Other persons or organizations shall have the right to participate as parties if the final Administrative order could adversely affect them or the class they represent, and such participation may contribute materially to the proper disposition of the proceedings.

(3) Any person or organization wishing to participate as a party under this section shall file with the Administrative Law Judge and serve on all parties a petition within 25 days after the commencement of the action or at such other time as ordered by the Administrative Law Judge, so long as it does not disrupt the proceeding. Such petition shall concisely state:

(i) Petitioner's interest in the proceedings;

(ii) Who will appear for petitioner;

(iii) The issues on which petitioner wishes to participate; and

(iv) Whether petitioner intends to present witnesses.

(4) The Administrative Law Judge shall determine whether each petitioner has the requisite interest in the proceedings and shall permit or deny participation accordingly. Where petitions to participate as parties are made by individuals or groups with common interest, the Administrative Law Judge may request all such petitioners to designate a single representative to represent all such petitioners: Provided, That the representative of a labor organization qualifying to participate under paragraph (a)(1) of the section must be permitted to participate in the proceedings. The Administrative Law Judge shall give each petitioner written notice of the decision on his petition; and if the petition is denied, he shall briefly state the grounds for denial and shall then treat the petition as a request for participation as amicus curiae. The Administrative Law Judge shall give written notice to each party of each petition granted.

(b)(1) Any other interested person or organization wishing to participate as amicus curiae shall file a petition before the commencement of the final hearing with the Administrative Law Judge. Such petition shall concisely state:

(i) The petitioner's interest in the hearing;

(ii) Who will represent the petitioner; and

(iii) The issues on which petitioner intends to present argument. The Administrative Law Judge may grant the petition if he finds that the petitioner has a legitimate interest in the proceedings, and that such participation may contribute materially to the proper disposition of the issues. An amicus curiae is not a party but may participate as provided in this section.

(2) An amicus curiae may present a brief oral statement at the hearing at the point in the proceeding specified by the Administrative Law Judge. He may submit a written statement of position to the Administrative Law Judge prior to the beginning of a hearing and shall serve a copy on each party. He may also submit a brief or written statement at such time as the parties submit briefs and exceptions, and he shall serve a copy on each party.

Sec. 60-30.25 Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Within 20 days after receipt of the transcript of the testimony, each party and amicus may file a brief. Such briefs shall be served simultaneously on all parties and amici, and a certificate of service shall be furnished to the Administrative Law Judge. Requests for additional time in which to file a brief shall be made in writing, and copies shall be served simultaneously on the other parties. Requests for extensions shall be received not later than 3 days before the date such briefs are due. No reply brief may be filed except by special permission of the Administrative Law Judge.

Sec. 60-30.26 Record for recommended decision.

The transcript of testimony, exhibits, and all papers, documents, and requests filed in the proceedings, including briefs, but excepting the correspondence section of the docket, shall constitute the record for decision.

Sec. 60-30.27 Recommended decision.

Within a reasonable time after the filing of briefs, the Administrative Law Judge shall recommend findings, conclusions, and a decision. These recommendations shall be certified, together with the record for recommended decision, to the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, for a final Administrative order. The recommended findings, conclusions, and decision shall be served on all parties and amici to the proceeding.

Sec. 60-30.28 Exceptions to recommended decisions.

Within 14 days after receipt of the recommended findings, conclusions, and decision, any party may submit exceptions to said recommendation. These exceptions may be responded to by other parties within 14 days of their receipt by said parties. All exceptions and responses shall be filed with the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor. Service of such briefs or exceptions and responses shall be made simultaneously on all parties to the proceeding. Requests to the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, for additional time in which to file exceptions and responses shall be in writing and copies shall be served simultaneously on other parties. Requests for extensions must be received no later than 3 days before the exceptions are due.

Sec. 60-30.29 Record.

After expiration of the time for filing briefs and exceptions, the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, shall make a decision, which shall be the Administrative order, on the basis of the record. The record shall consist of the record for recommended decision, the rulings and recommended decision of the Administrative Law Judge and the exceptions and briefs filed subsequent to the Administrative Law Judge's decision.

Sec. 60-30.30 Administrative order.

After expiration of the time for filing, the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, shall make a decision which shall be served on all parties. If the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, concludes that the defendant has violated VEVRAA, section 503, the equal opportunity clauses at 41 CFR 60-300.5 or 60-741.5, the VEVRAA regulations in 41 CFR part 60-300, or section 503 regulations in 41 CFR part 60-741, an Administrative order shall be issued enjoining the violations, and requiring the contractor to provide whatever remedies are appropriate, and imposing whatever sanctions are appropriate, or any of the above. In any event, failure to comply with the Administrative order shall result in the immediate cancellation, termination, and suspension of the respondent's contracts and/or

debarment of the respondent from further contracts.

Sec. 60-30.31 Expedited hearings--when appropriate.

Expedited hearings may be used, inter alia, when a contractor or subcontractor has violated a conciliation agreement; has not adopted and implemented an acceptable affirmative action program; has refused to give access to or to supply records or other information as required by the equal opportunity clause; or has refused to allow an on-site compliance review to be conducted.

Sec. 60-30.32 Administrative complaint and answer.

(a) Expedited hearings shall be commenced by filing an administrative complaint in accordance with Sec. 60-30.5. The complaint shall state that the hearing is subject to these expedited hearing procedures.

(b) The answer shall be filed in accordance with Sec. 60-30.6(a) and (b).

(c) Failure to request a hearing within the 20 days provided by Sec. 60-30.6(a) shall constitute a waiver of hearing, and all the material allegations of fact contained in the complaint shall be deemed to be admitted. If a hearing is not requested or is waived, within 25 days of the complaint's filing, the Administrative Law Judge shall adopt as findings of fact the material facts alleged in the complaint, and shall order the appropriate sanctions and/or penalties sought in the complaint. The Administrative Law Judge's findings and order shall constitute a final Administrative order, unless the Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, files exceptions to the findings and order within 10 days of receipt thereof. If the Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, files exceptions, the matter shall proceed in accordance with Sec. 60-30.36.

(d) If a request for a hearing is received within 20 days as provided by Sec. 60-30.6(a), the hearing shall be convened within 45 days of receipt of the request and shall be completed within 15 days thereafter, unless more hearing time is required.

Sec. 60-30.33 Discovery.

(a) Any party may serve requests for admissions in accordance with Sec. 60-30.9(b) and (c).

(b) Witness lists and hearing exhibits will be exchanged at least 10 days in advance of the hearing.

(c) For good cause shown, and upon motion made in accordance with Sec. 60-30.8, the Administrative Law Judge may allow the taking of depositions. Other discovery will not be permitted.

Sec. 60-30.34 Conduct of hearing.

(a) At the hearing, the Government shall be given an opportunity to demonstrate the basis for the request for sanctions and/or remedies, and the contractor shall be given an opportunity to show that the violation complained of did not occur and/or that good cause or good faith efforts excuse the alleged violations. Both parties shall be allowed to present evidence and argument and to cross-examine witnesses.

(b) The hearing shall be informal in nature, and the Administrative Law Judge shall not be bound by formal rules of evidence.

Sec. 60-30.35 Recommended decision after hearing.

Within 15 days after the hearing is concluded, the Administrative Law Judge shall recommend findings, conclusions, and a decision. The Administrative Law Judge may permit the parties to file written post- hearing briefs within this time period, but the Administrative Law Judge's recommendations shall not be delayed pending receipt of such briefs. These recommendations shall be certified, together with the record, to the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, for a final Administrative order. The recommended decision shall be served on all parties and amici to the proceeding.

Sec. 60-30.36 Exceptions to recommendations.

Within 10 days after receipt of the recommended findings, conclusions and decision, any party may submit exceptions to said recommendations. Exceptions may be responded to by other parties within 7 days after receipt by said parties of the exceptions. All exceptions and responses shall be filed with the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor. Briefs or exceptions and responses shall be served simultaneously on all parties to the proceeding.

Sec. 60-30.37 Final Administrative order.

After expiration of the time for filing exceptions, the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, shall issue an Administrative order which shall be served on all parties. Unless the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, issues an Administrative order within 30 days after the expiration of the time for filing exceptions, the Administrative Law Judge's recommended decision shall become a final Administrative order which shall become effective on the 31st day after expiration of the time for filing exceptions. Except as to specific time periods required in this section, Sec. 60-30.30 shall be applicable to this section.

Sec. 60-30.38 Severability.

Should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any provision(s) of this part to be invalid, such action will not affect any other provision of this part.

PART 60-40 [REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0 7. Under the authority of E.O. 14173, remove and reserve 41 CFR Part 60-40.

PART 60-50 [REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0 8. Under the authority of E.O. 14173, remove and reserve 41 CFR Part 60-50.

PART 60-999 [REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0 9. Under the authority of E.O. 14173, remove and reserve 41 CFR Part 60-999.

Dated: August 19, 2026. Kenneth Wolfe, Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. [FR Doc. 2026-17114 Filed 8-20-26 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CM-P