On April 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) and certain operating administrations (OAs) issued a final rule that is likely to result in deregulation and increased opportunities for regulated communities to engage with agency decision-making. This rule reinstates and updates certain procedural requirements governing agency rulemaking, guidance, and enforcement actions. Importantly, this final rule spans across much of DOT[1] and has far-reaching implications for how the Department and its operating administrations conduct enforcement actions and develop regulations and guidance for regulated parties. This final rule is effective on May 27, 2026.
Background
Procedural requirements related to DOT rulemaking, guidance documents, and enforcement actions have been subject to a series of rollbacks and reinstatements, largely precipitated by Presidential Executive orders (EO), over the last few administrations. See Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures, 86 Fed. Reg. 17,292, 17,292 (Apr. 2, 2021).
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued EO 14148, Initial Recissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions, rescinding certain Biden-administration EOs, including two that formed the basis for this rule’s predecessor, the 2021 amendments. See 90 Fed. Reg. 8237 (Jan. 20, 2025). As a result, DOT undertook this rulemaking effort to reinstate and update many of the requirements previously in effect during President Trump’s first administration.
The Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to reinstate and update DOT procedural requirements on May 16, 2025. See Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures, 90 Fed. Reg. 20,956, 20,956 (May 16, 2025). DOT received eighteen comments during the public comment period, mostly in support of this rulemaking. In response, DOT made several changes and additions in this final rule.
Rulemaking Procedures
This final rule imposes a series of requirements related to agency rulemaking that reduces regulatory burdens and ensures that regulations are narrowly tailored to address identified market failures or statutory mandates. Specifically, this rule makes the following changes:
- Requires that, for each new significant regulation issued, at least ten existing regulatory barriers must be identified for revocation, which is also consistent with EO 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. See 90 Fed. Reg. 9,065, 9,065 (Feb. 6, 2025); 49 C.F.R. 5.5(g) (“For each new significant regulation issued, agencies must identify at least ten existing regulatory burdens to be revoked.”).
- Reestablishes the Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) and outlines its role in the development of DOT’s regulatory portfolio and ongoing review of regulations. Notably, this final rule clarifies that the Task Force’s reviews are ongoing, and external stakeholders may submit input to the Task Force through the Department’s Office of Regulation and Legislation at RegulatoryInfo@dot.gov. Critically, this provides external stakeholders opportunities to engage with agencies apart from public comment periods.
- Sets procedures for the Department to follow for each stage of the rulemaking process, including the initiation of new rulemakings, the development of economic analyses, preparation of rulemaking documents, and the opportunity for public participation.
- Notably, under the final rule, rulemakings must include either a cost-benefit analysis of the regulatory action or a reasoned determination that the expected impact or the safety need is such that a cost-benefit analysis is not warranted. 49 C.F.R. § 5.13(e)(1)(i). The agency is required to explain why benefits of a certain rule outweigh its costs or why a rule is warranted despite a negative cost-benefit assessment. 49 C.F.R. § 5.13(e)(1)(ii).
- If there are no studies or data to support the quantification of a certain rule’s economic impacts, then the agency is expected to commission such studies unless there is an urgent and compelling safety need that demands immediate action. 49 C.F.R. § 5.13(e)(2).
- Additionally, this final rule updates the Department’s policies regarding contacts with outside parties during the rulemaking process and the ongoing review of existing regulations. These updates provide increased opportunities for stakeholders to engage directly with DOT during rulemakings. See 49 C.F.R. § 5.19.
- Removes references to the monthly significant rulemaking report and instead relies on the semiannual Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
Guidance Document Procedures
This final rule largely reinstates agency guidance provisions prior to the 2021 amendments, in an effort to ensure accessibility and sufficient opportunity to engage with guidance documents. Specifically, this rule:
- Reinstates into the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 C.F.R. part 5, subpart C, policies and procedures that apply to all guidance documents rescinded by the 2021 amendments.
- Reinstates procedures regarding the review and clearance of guidance documents, ensuring that all guidance documents receive legal review and that “significant guidance documents”[2] are reviewed by the Office of the Secretary (OST). See 49 C.F.R. § 5.27; 49 C.F.R. § 5.35.
- Guidance proposed to be issued by an OA of the Department must be reviewed and cleared by the OA’s Office of Chief Counsel. See 49 C.F.R. § 5.27(a).
- Guidance proposed to be issued by a component of OST must be reviewed and cleared by the Office of General Counsel. See 49 C.F.R. § 5.27(b).
- Guidance proposed to be issued by an OA that is considered “significant” must be approved by the Secretary before issuance. See 49 C.F.R. § 5.35(a).
- Requires that all guidance documents are reviewed to ensure they are written in plain language and do not impose any substantial legal requirements beyond statute or regulation.
- Requires disclosure statements regarding the scope and effect of a guidance document when the contents of the guidance document stretch beyond what is required by existing law (e.g., statement that the contents of the guidance document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way).
- Requires a good faith cost assessment of the impact of the guidance document, outlined at 49 C.F.R. § 5.33. Specifically, the agency shall, to the extent possible, “make a good faith effort to estimate the likely economic cost impact of the guidance document to determine whether the document might be significant.” This obligation is more discretionary compared to the cost-benefit analysis required for rulemaking.
- Revises notice-and-comment procedures at 49 C.F.R. § 5.31 and 5.41 to specify that notice and comment may be offered through the Federal Register or the agency’s website. Additionally, it reinstates a requirement that the comment period for significant guidance documents be at least 30 days, unless the agency finds an exception applies to bypass public comment.
- Provides a process for interested parties to petition the Department to withdraw or modify the guidance documents according to rulemaking procedures in 49 C.F.R. § 5.13(c). See proposed 49 C.F.R. 5.43. Agencies must respond in a timely manner, and no later than 90 days after receipt of a request.
Enforcement Procedures
With respect to enforcement procedures, this final rule imposes a series of requirements intended to clarify requirements governing enforcement actions initiated by DOT, to establish standard operating procedures within DOT’s various enforcement programs to ensure consistency with due process, and to consolidate the procedural requirements into one centralized location. Specifically, this rule:
- Reinstates into the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 C.F.R. part 5, subpart D, enforcement policies and procedures rescinded by the 2021 amendments.
- Imposes provisions that allow regulated parties to petition the DOT General Counsel (GC) for a determination of whether DOT unlawfully engaged in a specific enforcement action. The GC’s review is discretionary, and there is no appeal right to the Secretary.
- The Department made several changes in the final rule in response to comments. In the NPRM, these proposed provisions allowed for the GC to recommend certain discipline consequences for noncompliant DOT employees and allowed regulated parties to appeal the GC’s determination to the Secretary. In the final rule, DOT removes both of these provisions, finding that they are inappropriate, unnecessary, or overly burdensome on the agency.
- Declines to adopt several suggestions from commenters including suggestions to limit the statute of limitations for enforcement actions to two years, restrict which roles (e.g., rulemaking versus enforcement) a DOT official can perform, and requiring additional factual predicates before moving forward on enforcement.
- Additionally, DOT declined to identify Federal courts as the proper forum for all DOT enforcement proceedings in the wake of SEC v. Jarkesy[3] because, in DOT’s view, many or all statutes authorizing DOT administrative enforcement are distinguishable from Jarkesy and do not violate the Seventh Amendment. DOT cited Axalta Coating Systems v. FAA[4] to support this assertion and ultimately declined to adopt the commenter’s recommendation.
Key Takeaways
This DOT rulemaking will have sweeping implications on how DOT engages in its rulemaking, guidance, and enforcement processes. Moreover, the rule provides the regulated community increased opportunities to engage with the agency decision-making process and seek review regarding certain actions (i.e., opportunities to petition for guidance document review and appeal enforcement decisions to the GC). Notably, the rule also provides clarity and opportunities for the regulated community to communicate with the agency outside of the comment periods. It is important that the regulated community is aware of these changes and the potential impacts they will have on DOT’s administrative process. Industry members should consider analyzing these changes and any related materials to develop an internal strategy that allows them to fully engage with the agencies.
[1] This final rule applies to the following DOT agencies: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and DOT.
[2] “The term significant guidance document means a guidance document that will be disseminated to regulated entities or the general public and that may reasonably be anticipated: (1) To lead to an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the U.S. economy, a sector of the U.S. economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) To create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Federal agency; (3) To alter materially the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) To raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866, as further amended.” 49 C.F.R. § 5.37(a).
[3] 603 U.S. 109 (2024).
[4] 144 F.4th 167 (3d Cir. 2025).
