FMCSA Administrative Rulemaking Guidance Enforcement Procedures

Content

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule reinstates and expounds upon procedural reforms for the Department's rulemakings, guidance documents, and
enforcement actions rescinded by a final rule published by the Department on April 2, 2021, “Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance,
and Enforcement Procedures.” Accordingly, this final rule revises and updates the Department's internal policies and procedures
relating to the issuance of rulemaking documents. In addition, this final rule updates the Department's procedural requirements
governing the review and clearance of guidance documents, and the initiation and conduct of enforcement actions, including
administrative enforcement proceedings and judicial enforcement actions brought in Federal court.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on May 27, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jill Laptosky, Office of Regulation and Legislation, Office of the General Counsel, Jill.Laptosky@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Department reinstates procedural reforms to its policies and procedures governing the issuance of rulemakings and guidance
documents, and the initiation and conduct of enforcement actions repealed by a final rule published by the Department on April
2, 2021, “Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures” (86 FR 17292), which the Department issued in response
to two Executive Orders that were revoked by the President in Executive Order 14148, “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive
Orders and Actions” (January 20, 2025). (1) The reforms set forth (1) updated policies and procedures governing the development and issuance of regulations by the Department's
operating administrations and components of the Office of the Secretary; (2) enhanced procedures for the review and clearance
of guidance documents; and (3) improved procedural requirements governing the Department's administrative enforcement actions
and judicial enforcement actions brought in Federal court, including express rights of regulated parties to enforce the protections
of this rule through administrative proceedings.

The Department proposed codification of these procedures in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on May 16, 2025. (2) The comment period closed on June 16, 2025. The Department received 18 comments during the public comment period. Most of
the comments supported the rulemaking. Though, for the reasons discussed below, the rulemaking is finalized as proposed, the
Department has made several changes to the proposed measures in response to the comments. In addition, the Department is implementing
a handful of additional procedural enhancements at the request of commenters.

In rescinding these procedures in 2021, the Department argued that many of the provisions that would be reinstated through
this action were already contained in existing internal procedures, could be accomplished by internal directives as necessary
and appropriate, and could slow important regulatory efforts. The Department has reconsidered these justifications for the
2021 rulemaking and, after reviewing comments received in response to the NPRM, reiterates its support of the recodification
of the procedures. Though many of the procedures contained in this final rule are found in internal procedures, they are not
located in one comprehensive and consolidated source. Codifying the Department's procedures concerning enforcement and the
development and issuance of rulemaking and guidance documents into the Code of Federal Regulations leaves no doubt to departmental
staff and regulated entities on the expectations regarding the procedural safeguards and expectations governing the Department's
administrative actions. In addition, the Department finds that any administrative delay associated with these procedures would
not only be minimal, based on past practice with these procedures, but also would be outweighed by the Department's production
of higher quality rulemaking, guidance documents, and enforcement actions. The Department produces its best work when it is
informed by robust public input, the best available data, and sound law and economics, and these procedures increase opportunities
to receive those essential building blocks for good governance that would strengthen the overall quality and fairness of the
Department's administrative actions. In addition, the Department revises the

existing policies and procedures because they are inconsistent with current departmental and Administration policy, and do
not consider the costs and implications of government regulation and intervention adequately. Many of the comments received
in response to the NPRM supported these principles and agreed with the Department's determination that these procedural reforms
serve the best interests of the American public.

Rulemaking Procedures

Most commenters supported the Department's proposed rulemaking provisions, commitment to economics and sound data, and vision
for public engagement to understand holistically the impacts of its rulemaking actions. Some commenters, however, expressed
concern that the procedures would delay rulemakings essential to advancing the Department's safety mission. The Department
assures these commenters that safety is always our number one priority, and these procedures will not compromise the Department's
safety mission.

The rulemaking procedures set forth in this final rule are finalized as proposed. The procedures apply to all phases of the
Department's rulemaking process, from advance notices of proposed rulemakings (ANPRM) to the promulgation of final rules,
including substantive rules, rules of interpretation, and rules prescribing agency procedures and practice requirements applicable
to outside parties. The final rule outlines regulatory policies, such as ensuring that there are no more regulations than
necessary, that where they impose burdens, regulations are narrowly tailored to address identified market failures or statutory
mandates, and that they specify performance objectives when appropriate. The Department's regulatory policies also include
a provision that for each new significant regulation issued, at least 10 existing regulatory burdens must be identified for
revocation. Some commenters did not support this provision and asked for guidance on how it would be implemented by the Department.
The Department notes that the requirement for agencies to eliminate 10 regulations for each new significant regulation issued
is a requirement of Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and refers interested commenters
to a memorandum issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), “Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192,
Titled `Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,'” to understand how agencies like the Department will implement that order. (3)

This final rule reflects the reestablishment of the Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force and assigns it an important
role in the development of the Department's regulatory portfolio and ongoing review of regulations. The Regulatory Reform
Task Force is chaired by the Regulatory Reform Officer and tasked with evaluating proposed and existing regulations and making
recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation regarding their promulgation, repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent
with applicable law. The final rule outlines the structure, membership, and responsibilities of the Regulatory Reform Task
Force at proposed 49 CFR 5.9. One commenter asked how external stakeholders may submit input to the Regulatory Reform Task
Force and how frequently it will conduct its reviews. 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 Transportation.RegulatoryInfo@dot.gov. The Department also encourages stakeholders to submit comments on any aspect of its regulatory agenda, including ideas for
regulatory reform and deregulation, through the semiannual Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. (4) Along the same lines, one commenter suggested that the Department review all waivers or regulatory exemptions that have been
in effect with satisfactory results for over 5 years for incorporation into regulation. The Department finds value in this
suggestion and intends to refer it to the Task Force for review.

This final rule also sets procedures the Department follows for all stages of the rulemaking process, including the initiation
of new rulemakings, the development of economic analyses, the contents of rulemaking documents, their review and clearance,
and the opportunity for fair and sufficient public participation. The final rule also updates the Department's policies regarding
contacts with outside parties during the rulemaking process as well as the ongoing review of existing regulations. Commenters
generally supported these provisions, particularly the Department's commitment to ensuring the public has an opportunity to
provide feedback on the Department's various rulemakings.

Commenters provided helpful feedback on our proposed rulemaking procedures, and we are making changes in the final rule in
response to comments. First, one commenter suggested that the Department publish all complaints, subject to appropriate redactions,
that are used to support its rulemakings and cease reliance on complaints to support rulemakings when the Department's investigation
of such complaints is ongoing. The Department supports the publication of material information on which the Department relies
in considering its rulemakings and has added language to § 5.13(h)(3)(i) to effectuate this requirement, which the Department
may fulfill by publishing the complaints themselves or, if publishing all complaints would be impracticable based on their
volume, a summary of the complaints. This addition is consistent with the Department's polices in § 5.19 to ensure the substance
of material information submitted by the public on which the Department relies in proposing or finalizing a rule is adequately
disclosed such that all interested parties have notice of the information and an opportunity to comment on its accuracy and
relevance. The Department declines to adopt the suggestion that we cease reliance on complaints under investigation. With
the addition of the provision requiring the disclosure of complaints on which the Department relies, the suggestion to cease
reliance on open complaints is not necessary because the veracity of the disclosed complaints may be raised during the public
comment period.

Second, at least one commenter requested that the Department add language to the final rule encouraging the Department to
notify the public as soon as possible on the disposition of a petition to extend a comment period. The Department agrees that
such a notification to the public would be helpful and is adding language to § 5.13(i)(4) encouraging the Department, as appropriate,
to notify the public

whether a petition to extend a comment period has been granted or denied. This notification will be published in the
Federal Register
and included in the rulemaking docket. The Department may also inform the public by posting on the agency's website or by
other appropriate means. One commenter supported the Department's implementation of longer comment periods, but no changes
are made in the final rule because the Department's procedures provide a minimum comment period length, and the Department
often offers longer comment periods.

Third, some commenters suggested that the Department should not be allowed to meet a benefit-cost analysis requirement simply
by stating that data does not exist to determine the benefits or costs of a regulation. The commenters suggested that the
Department should be required to commission a study if data does not exist to support a rulemaking. The Department agrees
that it is not wise or sound regulatory policy to regulate in the absence of data, economic support, or studies. At the same
time, the Department recognizes that urgent and compelling safety needs may require the Department to act immediately, thus
precluding the Department from commissioning data or studies. Likewise, the Department often needs to fulfill statutory mandates
for rulemakings, which Congress has determined are necessary to address a problem that Congress has identified. To balance
these competing interests, § 5.13(e)(2) will encourage the Department to quantify benefits and costs for discretionary regulatory
rulemakings (i.e., discretionary rulemakings that are subject to regulatory offsetting requirements found in Executive Order 14192).

One commenter did not support the Department's use of benefit-cost analysis to justify rulemakings, arguing that they are
not appropriate for safety rulemakings. The commenter recommended considering the trajectory of technology costs over time
into the Department's analyses. In benefit-cost analysis, a key principle is that technology costs generally decrease over
time, driven by factors like innovation, increased efficiency, and economies of scale. The commenter also argued that benefit-cost
analysis should not be the sole determining factor for making safety-sensitive decisions, and the Department could not agree
more. Benefit-cost analysis is just one of many factors that the Department considers when issuing regulations. The commenter
asked the Department to consider “intangible benefits like lives saved.” The Department is pleased to inform this commenter
that the Department's benefit-cost analyses often do consider nonquantifiable and intangible benefits, including scenarios
that are infrequent or rare. For the Department, however, “lives saved” is not simply an “intangible” factor but one that
we have quantified by developing a methodology for calculating the value of a statistical life and applying it in analyses
that assess the economic benefits for preventing fatalities. (5) Departmental guidance on the topic also established policies for assigning comparable values to the prevention of injuries.
These methodologies ensure consistency across the Department, sound consideration of safety benefits, and analytical efficiency.

Consistent with the current Administration and Department regulatory philosophy that rules imposing the greatest costs on
the public should be subject to heightened procedural requirements, the final rule reinstates enhanced procedures for economically
significant and high-impact rulemakings that were rescinded by the 2021 amendments. Economically significant rulemakings are
defined as those rules that would result in a total annualized cost on the U.S. economy of $100 million or more, or a total
net loss of at least 75,000 full-time jobs in the United States over 5 years. These changes can be found at 49 CFR 5.17(a)(1).
High-impact rulemakings would result in a total annualized cost on the U.S. economy of $500 million or more, or a total net
loss of at least 250,000 full-time jobs in the United States over 5 years as set forth in proposed 49 CFR 5.17(a)(2). These
costly rulemakings are subject to enhanced rulemaking procedures, such as advance notices of proposed rulemakings and formal
hearings. The procedures for economically significant and high-impact rulemakings are provided at proposed 49 CFR 5.17. In
the NPRM, DOT invited public comment on whether the thresholds chosen for net job losses at the economically significant and
high-impact levels are the most appropriate, whether DOT should consider different thresholds, and any data or studies that
show net job loss estimates in connection with past DOT rulemakings. Though no data or studies were offered, some commenters
weighed in on the proposal more generally. Many commenters supported the Department's decision to subject its costliest rulemakings
to higher standards, with one commenter arguing that more rules should be subject those procedures. Another commenter challenged the Department's use of ANPRMs in this context, arguing
that they offer little utility and may delay important regulatory work. In response, the Department will require either an ANPRM or a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) for its economically significant and high-impact rulemakings. This revision
is intended to generate more utility by ensuring that the public has an opportunity to provide additional comment when it
would be valuable during the appropriate stage of the rulemaking process. This revised requirement is reflected in § 5.17(b).

Other procedures, such as the filing of rulemaking petitions and direct final rules, (6) are finalized as proposed. One commenter supported the Department's judicious use of direct final rules. Other comments that
focused on modal or OA-specific issues, were outside the scope of this rulemaking.

This rulemaking updates references throughout DOT regulations as needed to account for updated internal procedures (e.g., 49 CFR part 605). This final rule also revises the regulations at 14 CFR 300.2 to delete a reference to rescinded DOT Order
2100.6 and 2100.6A, and replace it with DOT Order 2100.6B, and update the procedures for petitions for rulemakings found in
14 CFR 302.16 to provide explicitly that interested parties may file petitions for the Department to perform retrospective
reviews as noted above. Other minor conforming amendments are finalized at 49 CFR parts 1 and 7. In addition, this final rule
reinstates prior DOT policy regarding contacts with outside parties during the rulemaking process, which can be found at 5
CFR 5.19. Finally, the Department removes references to the monthly significant rulemaking report, which is duplicative of
the semiannual Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions and will no longer be maintained.

Guidance Document Procedures

This final rule reinstates into the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR part 5,

subpart C, policies and procedures that apply to all guidance documents, which the Department defines as an agency statement
of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on
a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, but which is not intended to
have the force or effect of law in its own right and is not otherwise required by statute to satisfy the rulemaking procedures
of the Administrative Procedure Act. One commenter requested that the final rule clarify that an operating administration's
reinterpretation of Federal grant obligations falls within the scope of the definition of a “guidance document.” The Department
declines to change the definition of a “guidance document” in this final rule but notes that if such a reinterpretation otherwise
satisfies the definition, then it would be a guidance document.

This final rule reinstates procedures regarding the review and clearance of guidance documents rescinded by the 2021 amendments.
The procedures ensure that all guidance documents receive legal review and, when appropriate, Office of the Secretary review.
One commenter suggested that all guidance documents (not just certain ones meeting the threshold of significant or “otherwise
of importance to the Department's interests”) be reviewed by the Secretary's office, but the Department declines to adopt
this suggestion to ensure efficient management of agency resources. The final rule also requires that, before guidance documents
are issued, they must be reviewed to ensure they are written in plain language and do not impose any substantive legal requirements
above and beyond statute or regulation. In addition, if a guidance document purports to describe, approve, or recommend specific
conduct that stretches beyond what is required by existing law, the final rule requires that it include a clear and prominent
statement effectively stating 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, and the guidance document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding
existing requirements under the law or agency policies. One commenter thought that the voluntary nature of guidance documents
might be emphasized better if guidance documents described several ways that the public can comply with the underlying regulations,
rather than specifying one means of compliance. The Department agrees to adopt a modified version of this commenter's suggestion,
which is reflected in § 5.29(e) and (f). The procedures for the review and clearance of guidance documents can be found at
49 CFR 5.27, 5.29, and 5.35. These procedures were largely supported by commenters, many of whom commended the Department
for its transparency and commitment to good governance.

In recognition of the fact that, even though guidance documents are not legally binding, they could nevertheless have a substantial
economic impact on regulated entities that alter their conduct to conform to the guidance, this final rule requires a good
faith cost assessment of the impact of the guidance document. This policy is outlined at 49 CFR 5.33. Several commenters appreciated
the Department's grounded understanding that guidance documents can have real cost impacts for regulated entities. One commenter
thought that the final rule should go further by requiring all guidance documents to receive formal economic analysis and
only be issued if the benefits of the guidance document exceed its costs absent a compelling safety need. The Department declines
to adopt this suggestion because the final rule already requires a “good faith cost estimate” for guidance documents, which
strikes a balance between two coexisting certainties—that guidance documents are nonbinding and thus impose no direct costs
but, at the same time, regulated entities may nevertheless incur costs when utilizing guidance documents.

This final rule also reinstates other policies and procedures rescinded by the 2021 amendments, such as those describing when
guidance documents are subject to notice and an opportunity for public comment and how they will be made available to the
public after issuance. See 49 CFR 5.31 and 5.41. In this final rule, the Department made some minor revisions to those notice-and-comment
procedures to specify that notice and comment may be offered through the
Federal Register
or the agency's website (the NPRM only specified the agency's website). Two commenters suggested that it would be helpful
for the Department to establish a website on which the public can view all departmental guidance documents with open comment
periods. Though the Department encourages interested members of the public to check the
Federal Register
for information regarding open comment periods, the Department understands that it may be helpful to track open comment periods
on departmental guidance documents in one convenient web-based location. As a result, the Department is exploring ways to
provide the public with a running list of open comment periods for the Department's rulemakings and guidance documents.

These procedures will ensure that the public has access to guidance documents issued by the Department and a fair and sufficient
opportunity to comment on guidance documents when appropriate and practicable. The final rule also provides a process for
interested parties to petition the Department for the withdrawal or modification of guidance documents at proposed 49 CFR
5.43. It also reinstates a requirement that the comment period for significant guidance documents be at least 30 days, except
when the agency for good cause finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. See 49 CFR 5.41. One commenter suggested that comment periods for departmental guidance documents should be longer.
The Department declines to adopt this suggestion because the final rule provides that 30 days for significant guidance documents
is only a minimum comment period length, and comment periods may be longer as appropriate.

Enforcement Procedures

In the NPRM, the Department proposed to reinstate into the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR part 5, subpart D, policies
and procedures rescinded by the 2021 amendments. This proposal was intended to clarify the requirements governing enforcement
actions initiated by DOT, to establish standard operating procedures within the Department's various enforcement programs
so that DOT enforcement actions satisfy principles of due process and remain lawful, reasonable, and consistent with current
Departmental and Administration policy, and to consolidate the procedural requirements into one centralized location.

In addition, the NPRM also proposed to add certain new provisions, including provisions conferring express rights on regulated
parties to enforce the protections of the rule through administrative proceedings. As proposed, these proceedings included
the opportunity for the subject of a DOT enforcement action to petition the General Counsel for a determination that responsible
DOT personnel violated provisions of this rule with respect to the enforcement action. The proposed remedies for the violations
included the removal of the enforcement team from the particular matter and, where appropriate, a recommendation from the

General Counsel to the relevant agency decisionmaker for appropriate administrative discipline of personnel found to have
violated the rule; the elimination of certain issues or the exclusion of certain evidence or the directing of certain factual
findings in the course of the enforcement action; and a requirement to restart the enforcement action again from the beginning
or recommence the action from an earlier point in the proceeding.

The Department received several comments in response to the proposed enforcement rights provision, which would enable a regulated
entity to petition the DOT General Counsel for relief if it believes that DOT enforcement personnel violated provisions of
this rule. Some commenters supported that proposal, though other commenters opposed it, asserting that the provision would
create a chilling effect on enforcement actions and potentially result in deference to regulated entities by inspectors and
other enforcement personnel out of fear of professional repercussions.

After considering all comments received on this proposal, DOT is adopting the proposed enforcement rights provision with some
modifications. DOT believes that the provision will help ensure that regulated entities can receive appropriate relief if
they are not treated fairly. DOT, however, is modifying the provision in several ways.

First, the final rule does not provide for the General Counsel recommending discipline against DOT employees. DOT has determined
that the complaint process should lead only to relief that will benefit the complaining party, and that it would not be appropriate
to allow regulated entities to seek disciplinary action against DOT employees. DOT also agrees with commenters that allowing
regulated entities to seek disciplinary action could deter DOT enforcement personnel from fully and effectively carrying out
their enforcement duties. DOT can address any employee discipline matters internally, including any matters related to violations
of this rule.

Second, DOT is adding language to the enforcement rights section to clarify that the DOT General Counsel retains discretion
as to whether to review any petitions filed by regulated entities, whether to issue relief upon identifying a violation, and
the scope of any relief. Third, DOT is eliminating the sentence that would have allowed the General Counsel's determinations
to be appealed to the Secretary, as the Department has determined that such appeals would create unnecessary additional burdens
for DOT and would provide little meaningful benefit for regulated entities. Finally, DOT is also making a minor wording change.

Most commenters supported reinstating the enforcement procedures that were rescinded in 2021, and DOT has decided to retain
those procedures in full. Commenters also suggested that DOT consider adding seven additional provisions in the final rule.
As explained below, DOT has determined not to add these provisions.

First, one airline industry commenter recommended that DOT institute a two-year statute of limitations for DOT enforcement
actions. This issue is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, and it is not clear that DOT has the authority to enact the proposal.
Further, this rule requires agency attorneys to initiate proceedings promptly to prosecute matters referred to them, and it
mandates that cases not be allowed to linger unduly after the adjudicatory process has begun.

Second, the same commenter suggested that DOT adopt a policy that prohibits DOT personnel from assuming an advocacy role,
while simultaneously holding a rulemaking, investigatory, or enforcement-related role. In DOT's view, the commenter's characterization
of the existence of a conflict of interest between a government attorney serving in an advocacy role, while simultaneously
holding a rulemaking, investigatory, or enforcement-related role, is an improper and ambiguous way of conceiving the role
of a government lawyer. DOT also believes that any specific issues regarding particular roles are best addressed separately,
rather than through a broad rulemaking.

Third, the same commenter recommended that DOT require that all enforcement actions have a clear factual foundation in addition
to a clear legal foundation. The commenter asserts that in the past DOT has unfairly relied upon unvalidated public complaints
as the basis for enforcement and recommended that “and factual” be added to § 5.63 so that section requires enforcement actions
to have “clear legal and factual foundation.” In DOT's view, this suggestion is misplaced, as regulated entities have an opportunity to contest the factual
bases for any enforcement action during enforcement proceedings. DOT does not believe that additional regulatory language
is needed.

Fourth, another commenter suggested that the rule identify the Federal courts as the proper forum for all DOT enforcement
proceedings. The commenter pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, (7) which held that the Seventh Amendment barred the Securities and Exchange Commission from pursuing certain enforcement matters
administratively rather than judicially. It is DOT's view that many or all statutes authorizing DOT to take administrative
enforcement actions are distinguishable from those at issue in Jarkesy and do not violate the Seventh Amendment, and DOT has successfully maintained that view in legal proceedings challenging DOT's
administrative actions based on such authorities. (8) DOT therefore declines to adopt the commenter's recommendation in this final rule. DOT notes, however, that this rule provides
that the proper forum for any enforcement action is Federal court unless the terms of a relevant statute, or of a regulation
with government-wide applicability, clearly and expressly authorize an administrative enforcement proceeding.

Fifth, a commenter recommended that DOT adopt a civil equivalent of the “rule of lenity,” a doctrine providing that ambiguous
statutes are interpreted in favor of a criminal defendant. The commenter suggests that DOT apply any unclear or ambiguous
statute or regulation in the way that it is most favorable to the subject of the enforcement action and least favorable to
the government. DOT does not believe that such a provision is necessary, given that this rule provides that the agency must
not adopt or rely upon overly broad or unduly expansive interpretations of the governing statutes or regulations and should
ensure that the law is interpreted according to its text.

Sixth, a commenter proposed that the rule's separation of functions provisions, contained in § 5.71, should apply beyond those
DOT Operating Administrations or components of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) whose regulations provide
for a separation of decisional personnel from adversarial personnel in an administrative proceeding. DOT agrees that the separation
of functions can play an important role in ensuring due process. DOT, however, does not believe that it would be appropriate
to use this rule to restructure DOT enforcement programs. To the extent that issues arise with respect to programs not covered
by this provision of the rule, DOT will consider those issues separately.

Finally, a commenter indicated support for the proposal that settlement

agreements be public documents but suggested that the rule provide confidentiality protections for redline drafts of consent
agreements developed and shared during negotiations. DOT declines to adopt this recommendation. DOT will make recommendations
on whether to release documents on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the Freedom of Information Act and other applicable
law, regulation, and policy.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This final rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. However, the Department does not anticipate
that this rulemaking will have a direct economic impact on regulated entities. This is a rule of agency procedure and practice.
The final rule describes the updates and amendments to the Department's internal procedures for the promulgation and processing
of rulemaking and guidance documents, and for initiating and conducting enforcement proceedings. The Department has already
adopted most of these internal procedures as part of its regulatory reform initiative and has not incurred any additional
resource costs in doing so. The adoption of these practices has been accomplished through a realignment of existing agency
resources, and it is anticipated that the public will benefit from the resulting increase in efficiency and transparency in
delivery of government services.

This final rule establishes procedures on rulemaking as a comprehensive set of regulations that will increase accountability,
ensure more robust public participation, and strengthen the overall quality and fairness of the Department's administrative
actions. The Department has a long history of Federal leadership in adopting good regulatory practices, and this action is
consistent with that history. Though it is anticipated that the direct impact of this rule will be experienced internally
to the Department in the form of streamlined and clarified regulatory processes, additional secondary and positive impacts
due to improved decision making are expected.

Regulated entities and the public will continue to benefit from these enhanced procedures through increased agency deliberations
and more opportunities to comment on rulemakings and guidance documents. With regard to the enforcement procedures, we anticipate
that there will be no additional costs on regulated entities, as individual regulations already published by DOT agencies
account for current costs of compliance. This final rule will simply clarify the internal DOT procedural requirements necessary
to ensure fair and reasonable enforcement processes where violations are alleged to have occurred by the regulated community.

B. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)

This final rule is not an Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, January 31, 2025) regulatory action because this rulemaking is
related to agency organization, management, or personnel.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA) imposes certain requirements with respect to Federal
rules that are subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
551 et seq.) and that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unless an agency determines
that a proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 603 of the
RFA requires the agency to present an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) of the proposed rule. An IRFA is not
required if the agency head certifies that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities (5 U.S.C. 605).

Though most of this final rule's provisions concern internal management of the Department, one provision of it would confer
express rights on regulated parties, some of whom are small entities, to enforce the protections of the rule through administrative
proceedings. The Department expects the impact of that provision would be entirely beneficial to small entities. Accordingly,
I hereby certify that this rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development
of regulatory policies that may have a substantial, direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This
action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999),
and DOT has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect or federalism implications on the States
and would not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental
functions. Therefore, consultation with the States is not necessary.

E. Executive Order 13175

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175, “Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Because this rulemaking does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of the Indian Tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements
of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) requires that DOT consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public and, under
the provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors,
or requires through regulations. The DOT has determined there are no new information collection requirements associated with
this final rule.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1D, “Procedures for Considering Environmental
Impacts” (July 1, 2025). Categorical exclusions (CEs) are categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do
not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment
(EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See DOT Order 5610.1D, section 9. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether
extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. section 9(b). The Department's Operating Administrations (OAs) may apply CEs established in another OA's procedures. Id. section 9(f). To do so, the Operating Administration “must evaluate the action for extraordinary circumstances identified
in the OA procedures in

which the CE is established to determine if a normally excluded action may have a significant impact and coordinate with the
originating OA to ensure that the CE is being applied correctly.” Id. This rulemaking, which sets procedures for rulemaking, guidance documents, and enforcement actions, is categorically excluded
pursuant to 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), “Promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives.” The Department does not anticipate
any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

Regulation Identifier Number

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained
in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

Administrative practice and procedure, Conflicts of interests.

Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Airports, Postal Service.

Consumer protection, Enforcement, Policies, Rulemaking proceedings, Unfair or deceptive practices.

Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies).

Administrative practice and procedure.

Freedom of information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials transportation.

Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.

Administrative practice and procedure, Motor vehicle safety.

Authority delegations (Government agencies), Freedom of information, Organization and functions (Government agencies).

Administrative practice and procedure, Buses, Mass transportation.

Issued in Washington, DC.

Sean P. Duffy, Secretary. In consideration of the foregoing, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation amends 14 CFR parts 11, 300, 302, and 399,
and 49 CFR parts 5, 106, 389, 553, 601, and 605 as follows:

Title 14—Aeronautics and Space

PART 300—RULES OF CONDUCT IN DOT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS CHAPTER

Regulatory Text 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. subtitle I and chapters 401, 411, 413, 415, 417, 419, 421, 449, 461, 463, and 465.

1. Amend § 300.2 by revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 300.2 Prohibited communications.

---

(b) * * *

(4) * * *

(ii) A rulemaking proceeding involving a hearing as described in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section or an exemption proceeding
covered by this chapter. (Other rulemaking proceedings are covered by the ex parte communication policies of DOT Order 2100.6B
and 49 CFR 5.19).

---

PART 302—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PROCEEDINGS

Regulatory Text 3. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

39 U.S.C. 5402; 42 U.S.C. 4321, 49 U.S.C. Subtitle I and Chapters 401, 411, 413, 415, 417, 419, 461, 463, and 471.

1. Revise § 302.16 to read as follows:

§ 302.16 Petitions for rulemaking.

Any interested person may petition the Department for the issuance, amendment, modification, or repeal of any regulation or
guidance document, or for the Department to perform a retrospective review of an existing rule, subject to the provisions
of 49 CFR 5.13(c) and 5.43.

PART 399—STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY

Regulatory Text 5. The authority citation for part 399 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 40113(a), 41712, 46106, 46107, and 42305.

1. Amend § 399.75 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows:

§ 399.75 Rulemakings relating to unfair and deceptive practices.

---

(b) Procedural requirements. When issuing a proposed regulation under paragraph (a) of this section that is defined as high impact or economically significant
within the meaning of 49 CFR 5.17(a), the Department shall follow the procedural requirements set forth in 49 CFR 5.17. When
issuing a proposed regulation under paragraph (a) of this section that is not defined as high impact or economically significant
within the meaning of 49 CFR 5.17(a), unless the regulation is specifically required by statute, the Department shall adhere
to the following procedural requirements:

---

Title 49—Transportation

PART 1—ORGANIZATION AND DELEGATION OF POWERS AND DUTIES

Regulatory Text 7. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 322.

1. Amend § 1.27 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 1.27 Delegations to the General Counsel.

---

(e) Respond to petitions for rulemaking or petitions for exemptions in accordance with 49 CFR 5.13(c)(2), and notify petitioners
of decisions in accordance with 49 CFR 5.13(c)(4)(v).

---

1. Revise part 5 to read as follows:

PART 5—ADMINISTRATIVE RULEMAKING, GUIDANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

Subpart A—General

Sec. 5.1 Applicability.

Subpart B—Rulemaking Procedures

5.3 General. 5.5 Regulatory policies. 5.7 Responsibilities. 5.9 Regulatory Reform Task Force. 5.11 Initiating a rulemaking. 5.13 General rulemaking procedures. 5.15 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). 5.17 Special procedures for economically significant and high-impact rulemakings. 5.19 Public contacts in informal rulemaking. 5.21 Policy updates and revisions.

Subpart C—Guidance Procedures

5.25 General. 5.27 Review and clearance by Chief Counsels and the Office of the General Counsel. 5.29 Requirements for clearance. 5.31 Public access to effective guidance documents. 5.33 Good faith cost estimates. 5.35 Approved procedures for guidance documents identified as “significant” or “otherwise of importance to the Department's interests.” 5.37 Definitions of “significant guidance document” and guidance documents that are “otherwise of importance to the Department's
interests.” 5.39 Designation procedures. 5.41 Notice-and-comment procedures. 5.43 Petitions for guidance. 5.45 Rescinded guidance. 5.47 Exigent circumstances. 5.49 Reports to Congress and GAO.

Subpart D—Enforcement Procedures

5.53 General. 5.55 Enforcement attorney responsibilities. 5.57 Definitions. 5.59 Enforcement policy generally. 5.61 Investigative functions. 5.63 Clear legal foundation. 5.65 Proper exercise of prosecutorial and enforcement discretion. 5.67 Duty to review for legal sufficiency. 5.69 Fair notice. 5.71 Separation of functions. 5.73 Avoiding bias. 5.75 Representation of regulated parties. 5.77 Formal enforcement adjudications. 5.79 Informal enforcement adjudications. 5.81 The hearing record. 5.83 Contacts with the public. 5.85 Duty to disclose exculpatory evidence. 5.87 Use of guidance documents in administrative enforcement cases. 5.89 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). 5.91 Duty to adjudicate proceedings promptly. 5.93 Termination of investigation. 5.95 Initiation of additional investigations. 5.97 Agency decisions. 5.99 Settlements. 5.101 OGC approval required for certain settlement terms. 5.103 Basis for civil penalties and disclosures thereof. 5.105 Publication of decisions. 5.107 Coordination with the Office of Inspector General on criminal matters. 5.109 Standard operating procedures. 5.111 Cooperative information sharing. 5.113 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). 5.115 Referral of matters for judicial enforcement. 5.117 Publicly available decisional quality and efficiency metrics. 5.119 Enforcement rights.

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 322(a).

Subpart A—General

§ 5.1 Applicability. (a) This part prescribes general procedures that apply to rulemakings, guidance documents, and enforcement actions of the
U.S. Department of Transportation (the Department or DOT), including each of its operating administrations (OAs) and all components
of the Office of Secretary of Transportation (OST).

(b) For purposes of this part, Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is the Federal statute, codified in scattered sections of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, United States Code, that governs procedures
for agency rulemaking and adjudication and provides for judicial review of final agency actions.

Subpart B—Rulemaking Procedures

§ 5.3 General. (a) This subpart governs all DOT employees, contractors, and others subject to supervision and control by DOT officials involved
with all phases of rulemaking at DOT.

(b) Unless otherwise required by statute, this subpart applies to all DOT regulations, which shall include all rules of general
applicability promulgated by any components of the Department that affect the rights or obligations of persons outside the
Department, including substantive rules, rules of interpretation, and rules prescribing agency procedures and practice requirements
applicable to outside parties.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, this subpart applies to all regulatory actions intended to lead to
the promulgation of a rule and any other generally applicable agency directives, circulars, or pronouncements concerning matters
within the jurisdiction of an OA or component of OST that are intended to have the force or effect of law or that are required
by statute to satisfy the rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 or 5 U.S.C. 556.

(d) This subpart does not apply to:

(1) Regulations issued with respect to a military or foreign affairs function of the United States;

(2) Rules addressed solely to internal agency management or personnel matters;

(3) Regulations related to Federal Government procurement; or

(4) Guidance documents, which are not intended to, and do not in fact, have the force or effect of law for parties outside
of the Department, and which are governed by subpart C of this part.

§ 5.5 Regulatory policies. The policies in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section govern the development and issuance of regulations at DOT:

(a) There should be no more regulations than necessary. In considering whether to propose a new regulation, policy makers
should consider whether the specific problem to be addressed requires agency action, whether existing rules (including standards
incorporated by reference) have created or contributed to the problem and should be revised or eliminated, and whether any
other reasonable alternatives exist that obviate the need for a new regulation.

(b) All regulations must be supported by statutory authority and consistent with the Constitution.

(c) Where they rest on scientific, technical, economic, or other specialized factual information, regulations should be supported
by the best available evidence and data.

(d) Regulations should be written in plain English, should be straightforward, and should be clear.

(e) Regulations should be technologically neutral, and, to the extent feasible, they should specify performance objectives,
rather than prescribing specific conduct that regulated entities must adopt.

(f) Regulations should be designed to minimize burdens and reduce barriers to market entry whenever possible, consistent with
the effective promotion of safety. Where they impose burdens, regulations should be narrowly tailored to address identified
market failures or specific statutory mandates.

(g) Unless required by law or compelling safety need, regulations should not be issued unless their benefits are expected
to exceed their costs. For each new significant regulation issued, agencies must identify at least ten existing regulatory
burdens to be revoked.

(h) Once issued, regulations and other agency actions should be reviewed periodically and revised to ensure that they continue
to meet the needs they were designed to address and remain cost-effective and cost-justified.

(i) Full public participation should be encouraged in rulemaking actions, primarily through written comment and engagement
in public meetings. Public participation in the rulemaking process should be conducted and documented, as appropriate, to
ensure that the public is given adequate knowledge of substantive information relied upon in the rulemaking process.

(j) The process for issuing a rule should be sensitive to the economic

impact of the rule; thus, the promulgation of rules that are expected to impose greater economic costs should be accompanied
by additional procedural protections and avenues for public participation.

§ 5.7 Responsibilities. (a) The Secretary of Transportation supervises the overall planning, direction, and control of the Department's Regulatory
Agenda; approves regulatory documents for issuance and submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive
Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (Oct. 4, 1993); identifies an approximate regulatory budget for each
fiscal year as required by E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (Jan. 31, 2025); establishes the Department's
Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF); and designates the members of the RRTF and the Department's Regulatory Reform Officer
(RRO) in accordance with E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (Feb. 24, 2017).

(b) The Deputy Secretary of Transportation assists the Secretary in overseeing overall planning, direction, and control of
the Department's Regulatory Agenda and approves the initiation of regulatory action, as defined in E.O. 12866, by the OAs
and components of OST. Unless otherwise designated by the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary serves as the Chair of the Leadership
Council of the RRTF and as the Department's RRO.

(c) The General Counsel of DOT is the chief legal officer of the Department with final authority on all questions of law for
the Department, including the OAs and components of OST; serves on the Leadership Council of the RRTF; and serves as the Department's
Regulatory Policy Officer pursuant to section 6(a)(2) of E.O. 12866.

(d) The RRO of DOT is delegated authority by the Secretary to oversee the implementation of the Department's regulatory reform
initiatives and policies to ensure the effective implementation of regulatory reforms, consistent with E.O. 13777 and applicable
law.

(e) DOT's noncareer Principal Deputy General Counsel is a member of the RRTF and serves as the Chair of the RRTF Working Group.

(f) DOT's Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Legislation supervises the Office of Regulation and Legislation within
the Office of the General Counsel (OGC); oversees the process for DOT rulemakings; provides legal advice on compliance with
APA and other administrative law requirements and executive orders, related OMB directives, and other procedures for rulemaking
and guidance documents; circulates regulatory documents for departmental review and seeks concurrence from reviewing officials;
submits regulatory documents to the Secretary for approval before issuance or submission to OMB; coordinates with the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB on the designation and review of regulatory documents and the preparation
of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions; and serves as a member of the RRTF Working Group.

(g) Pursuant to delegations from the Secretary under 49 CFR part 1, OA Administrators and Secretarial officers exercise the
Secretary's rulemaking authority under 49 U.S.C. 322(a), and they have responsibility for ensuring that the regulatory data
included in the New Environment for Information and Leadership on Rules (NEIL Rules), or a successor data management system,
for their OAs and OST components is accurate and is updated at least once a month.

(h) OA Chief Counsels supervise the legal staffs of the OAs; interpret and provide guidance on all statutes, regulations,
executive orders, and other legal requirements governing the operation and authorities of their respective OAs; and review
all rulemaking documents for legal sufficiency.

(i) Each OA or OST component responsible for rulemaking will have a Regulatory Quality Officer, designated by the Administrator
or Secretarial office head, who will have responsibility for reviewing all rulemaking documents for plain language, technical
soundness, and general quality.

§ 5.9 Regulatory Reform Task Force. (a) Purpose. The Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) evaluates proposed and existing regulations and makes recommendations to the Secretary
regarding their promulgation, repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law, E.O. 14192, E.O. 13777,
and E.O. 12866.

(b) Structure. The RRTF comprises a Leadership Council and a Working Group.

(1) The Working Group coordinates with leadership in the Secretarial offices and OAs, reviews and develops recommendations
for regulatory and deregulatory action, and presents recommendations to the Leadership Council.

(2) The Leadership Council reviews the Working Group's recommendations and advises the Secretary.

(c) Membership. (1) The Leadership Council comprises the following:

(i) The Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO), who serves as Chair;

(ii) The Department's Regulatory Policy Officer, designated under section 6(a)(2) of E.O. 12866;

(iii) A representative from the Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy; and

(iv) At least three additional senior agency officials as determined by the Secretary.

(2) The Working Group comprises the following:

(i) At least one senior agency official from the Office of the General Counsel, including at a minimum the Assistant General
Counsel for Regulation and Legislation, as determined by the RRO;

(ii) At least one senior agency official from the Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, as determined
by the RRO; and

(iii) Other senior agency officials from the Office of the Secretary, as determined by the RRO.

(d) Functions and responsibilities. In addition to the functions and responsibilities enumerated in E.O. 13777, the RRTF performs the following duties:

(1) Reviews each request for a new rulemaking action initiated by an OA or OST component; and

(2) Considers each regulation and regulatory policy question (which may include proposed guidance documents) referred to it
and makes a recommendation to the Secretary for its disposition.

(e) Support. The Office of Regulation and Legislation within OGC provides support to the RRTF.

(f) Meetings. The Leadership Council meets approximately monthly and will hold specially scheduled meetings when necessary to address particular
regulatory matters. The Working Group meets approximately monthly with each OA and each component of OST with regulatory authority,
and the Working Group may establish subcommittees, as appropriate, to focus on specific regulatory matters.

(g) Agenda. The Office of Regulation and Legislation prepares an agenda for each meeting and distributes it to the members in advance
of the meeting, together with any documents to be discussed at the meeting. The OA or OST component responsible for matters
on the agenda will be invited to attend to respond to questions.

(h) Minutes. The Office of Regulation and Legislation prepares summary

minutes following each meeting and distributes them to the meeting's attendees.

§ 5.11 Initiating a rulemaking. (a) Before an OA or component of OST may proceed to develop a regulation, the Administrator of the OA or the Secretarial officer
who heads the OST component must consider the regulatory philosophy and principles of regulation identified in section 1 of
E.O. 12866 and the policies set forth in § 5.5. If the OA Administrator or OST component head determines that rulemaking is
warranted consistent with those policies and principles, the Administrator or component head may prepare a Rulemaking Initiation
Request.

(b) The Rulemaking Initiation Request should specifically state or describe:

(1) A proposed title for the rulemaking;

(2) The need for the regulation, including a description of the market failure or statutory mandate necessitating the rulemaking;

(3) The legal authority for the rulemaking;

(4) Whether the rulemaking is expected to be regulatory or deregulatory;

(5) Whether the rulemaking is expected to be significant or nonsignificant, as defined by E.O. 12866;

(6) Whether the rulemaking in question is expected to be an economically significant rule or high-impact rule, as defined
in § 5.17(a);

(7) A description of the economic impact associated with the rulemaking, including whether the rulemaking is likely to impose
quantifiable costs or cost savings;

(8) The tentative target dates for completing each stage of the rulemaking; and

(9) Whether there is a statutory or judicial deadline, or some other urgency, associated with the rulemaking.

(c) The OA or OST component submits the Rulemaking Initiation Request to the Office of Regulation and Legislation, together
with any other documents that may assist in the RRTF's consideration of the request.

(d) The Office of Regulation and Legislation includes the Rulemaking Initiation Request on the agenda for consideration at
the OA's or OST component's next Working Group meeting.

(e) If the Working Group recommends the approval of the Rulemaking Initiation Request, then the Request is referred to the
Leadership Council for consideration. In lieu of consideration at a Leadership Council meeting, the Working Group, at its
discretion, may submit a memorandum to the RRO seeking approval of the Rulemaking Initiation Request.

(f) The OA or OST component may assign a Regulatory Information Number (RIN) to the rulemaking only upon the Leadership Council's
(or RRO's) approval of the Rulemaking Initiation Request.

(g) The Secretary may initiate a rulemaking on his or her own motion. The process for initiating a rulemaking as described
in this section may be waived or modified for any rule with the approval of the RRO. Unless otherwise determined by the RRO,
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may promulgate an emergency rule under 49 U.S.C. 106(f)(4)(B(iii)
and 49 U.S.C. 46105(c), without first submitting a Rulemaking Initiation Request.

(h) Rulemaking Initiation Requests will be considered on a rolling basis; however, the Office of Regulation and Legislation
will establish deadlines for submission of Rulemaking Initiation Requests so that new rulemakings may be included in the Unified
Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

§ 5.13 General rulemaking procedures. (a) Definitions. (1) Significant rulemaking means a regulatory action designated by OIRA under E.O. 12866 as likely to result in a rule that may:

(i) Have an annual effect on the U.S. economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities;

(ii) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(iii) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations
of recipients thereof; or

(iv) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth
in E.O. 12866.

(2) Nonsignificant rulemaking means a regulatory action not designated significant by OIRA.

(b) Departmental review process. (1) Except as provided in this part or as otherwise provided in writing by OGC, or otherwise prescribed by law, all departmental
rulemakings are to be reviewed and cleared by the Office of the Secretary.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) The FAA Administrator may promulgate emergency rules pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 106(f)(4)(B)(iii) and 49 U.S.C. 46105(c),
without prior approval from OST; provided that, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with law, the FAA Administrator
will give OST advance notice of such emergency rules and will allow OST to review the rules in accordance with the provisions
of this subpart upon promulgation, at the latest.

(2) Leadership within the proposing OA or component of OST shall:

(i) Ensure that the OA's or OST component's Regulatory Quality Officer reviews all rulemaking documents for plain language,
technical soundness, and general quality;

(ii) Ensure that the OA's Office of Chief Counsel (or for OST rules, the Office within OGC responsible for providing programmatic
advice) reviews all rulemaking documents for legal support and legal sufficiency; and

(iii) Approve the submission of all rulemaking documents, including any accompanying analyses (e.g., regulatory impact analysis), to the Office of Regulation and Legislation through the New Environment for Information and Leadership
on Rules (NEIL Rules), or a successor data management system, for OST review and clearance.

(3) To effectuate departmental review under this subpart, the following Secretarial offices ordinarily review and approve
DOT rulemakings: The Office of the Under Secretary for Policy, the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of Budget and Programs
and Chief Financial Officer, OGC, and the Office of Governmental Affairs. The Office of Regulation and Legislation may also
require review and clearance by other Secretarial offices and OAs depending on the nature of the particular rulemaking document.

(4) Reviewing offices should provide comments or otherwise concur on rulemaking documents within 7 calendar days, unless exceptional
circumstances apply that require expedited review.

(5) The Office of Regulation and Legislation provides a passback of comments to the proposing OA or OST component for resolution.
Comments should be resolved and a revised draft submitted to the Office of Regulation and Legislation by the OA or OST component
within 14 calendar days.

(6) The Office of Regulation and Legislation prepares a rulemaking package for the General Counsel to request the Secretary's
approval for the rulemaking to be submitted to OMB for review and for its subsequent issuance (for significant rulemakings)
or to the
Federal Register
for publication (for nonsignificant rulemakings). These rulemaking packages are submitted through the General Counsel to the
Office of the Executive Secretariat.

(7) The Office of Regulation and Legislation notifies the proposing OA or OST component when the Secretary approves or disapproves
the submission of the rulemaking to OMB or its issuance and submission to the
Federal Register
.

(8) The Office of Regulation and Legislation is responsible for coordination with OIRA staff on the designation of all rulemaking
documents, submission and clearance of all significant rulemaking documents, and all discussions or meetings with OMB concerning
these documents. OAs and OST components should not schedule their own meetings with OIRA without Office of Regulation and
Legislation involvement. Each OA or OST component should coordinate with the Office of Regulation and Legislation before holding
any discussions with OIRA concerning regulatory policy or requests to modify regulatory documents.

(c) Petitions for rulemaking, exemption, and retrospective review. (1) Any person may petition an OA or OST component with rulemaking authority to:

(i) Issue, amend, or repeal a rule;

(ii) Issue an exemption, either permanently or temporarily, from any requirements of a rule; or

(iii) Perform a retrospective review of an existing rule.

(2) When an OA or OST component receives a petition under this paragraph (c), the petition should be filed with the Docket
Clerk in a timely manner. If a petition is filed directly with the Docket Clerk, the Docket Clerk will submit the petition
in a timely manner to the OA or component of OST with regulatory responsibility over the matter described in the petition.

(3) The OA or component of OST should provide clear instructions on its website to members of the public regarding how to
submit petitions, including, but not limited to, an email address or web portal where petitions can be submitted, a mailing
address where hard copy requests can be submitted, and an office responsible for coordinating such requests.

(4) Unless otherwise provided by statute or in OA regulations or procedures, the following procedures apply to the processing
of petitions for rulemaking, exemption, or retrospective review:

(i) Contents. Each petition filed under this section must:

(A) Be submitted, either by paper submission or electronically, to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;

(B) Describe the nature of the request and set forth the text or substance of the rule or specify the rule that the petitioner
seeks to have issued, amended, exempted, repealed, or retrospectively reviewed, as the case may be;

(C) Explain the interest of the petitioner in the action requested, including, in the case of a petition for an exemption,
the nature and extent of the relief sought and a description of the persons to be covered by the exemption;

(D) Contain any information and arguments available to the petitioner to support the action sought; and

(E) In the case of a petition for exemption, unless good cause is shown in that petition, be submitted at least 60 days before
the proposed effective date of the exemption.

(ii) Processing. Each petition received under this paragraph (c) is referred to the head of the office responsible for the subject matter of
that petition, the Office of Regulation and Legislation, and the RRO. No public hearing, argument, or other proceeding must
necessarily be held directly on a petition for its disposition under this section.

(iii) Grants. If the OA or component of OST with regulatory responsibility over the matter described in the petition determines that the
petition contains adequate justification, it may request the initiation of a rulemaking action under § 5.11 or grant the petition,
as appropriate.

(iv) Denials. If the OA or component of OST determines that the petition is not justified, the OA or component of OST denies the petition
in coordination with the Office of Regulation and Legislation.

(v) Notification. Whenever the OA or OST component determines that a petition should be granted or denied, and after consultation with the Office
of Regulation and Legislation in the case of denial, the office concerned prepares a notice of that grant or denial for issuance
to the petitioner, and issues it to the petitioner.

(d) Review of existing regulations. (1) Except as otherwise required by law, all departmental regulations are on a 10-year review cycle, except economically significant
and high-impact rules, which are reviewed every 5 years in accordance with § 5.17(f).

(2) The OA or OST component that issued the regulation will review it for the following:

(i) Continued cost justification. Whether the regulation requires adjustment due to changed market conditions or is no longer cost-effective or cost-justified
in accordance with § 5.5(h);

(ii) Regulatory flexibility. Whether the regulation has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, thus, requires review
under 5 U.S.C. 610 (section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act);

(iii) Innovation. Whether there are new or emerging technologies, especially those that could achieve current levels of safety at the same or
lower levels of cost or achieve higher levels of safety, use of which is precluded or limited by the regulation;

(iv) General updates. Whether the regulation may require technical corrections, updates (e.g., updated versions of voluntary consensus standards), revisions, or repeal;

(v) Plain language. Whether the regulation requires revisions for plain language; and

(vi) Other considerations. Other considerations as required by relevant executive orders and laws.

(3) The results of each OA's or OST component's review will be reported annually to the public.

(4) Any member of the public may petition the Department to conduct a retrospective review of a regulation by filing a petition
in accordance with the procedures contained in paragraph (c) of this section.

(e) Supporting economic analysis. (1) Rulemakings shall include, at a minimum:

(i) An assessment of the potential costs and benefits of the regulatory action (which may entail a regulatory impact analysis)
or a reasoned determination that the expected impact is so minimal or the safety need so significant and urgent that a formal
analysis of costs and benefits is not warranted; and

(ii) If the regulatory action is expected to impose costs, either a reasoned determination that the benefits outweigh the
costs or, if the particular rulemaking is mandated by statute or compelling safety need notwithstanding a negative cost-benefit
assessment, a detailed discussion of the rationale supporting the specific regulatory action proposed and an explanation of
why a less costly alternative is not an option.

(2) To the extent practicable, economic assessments shall quantify the foreseeable annual economic costs and cost savings
within the United States that would likely result from issuance of the proposed rule and shall be conducted in accordance
with the

requirements of sections 6(a)(2)(B) and 6(a)(2)(C) of E.O. 12866 and OMB Circular A-4, as specified by OIRA in consultation
with the Office of Regulation and Legislation. If the proposing OA or OST component does not have studies or data to support
quantification of economic impacts, then it should commission them for discretionary regulatory rulemakings (as defined in
E.O. 14192) unless an urgent and compelling safety need requires immediate action. If the proposing OA or OST component has
estimated that the proposed rule will likely impose economic costs on persons outside the United States, such costs should
be reported separately.

(3) Deregulatory rulemakings (including nonsignificant rulemakings) shall be evaluated for quantifiable cost savings. If it
is determined that quantification of cost savings is not possible or appropriate, then the proposing OA or OST component shall
provide a detailed justification for the lack of quantification upon submission of the rulemaking to the Office of Regulation
and Legislation. Other nonsignificant rulemakings shall include, at a minimum, the economic cost-benefit analysis described
in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.

(f) Regulatory flexibility analysis. All rulemakings subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603-604 (sections 603-604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act), and
any amendment thereto, shall include a detailed statement setting forth the required analysis regarding the potential impact
of the rule on small business entities.

(g) Advance notices of proposed rulemaking. Whenever the OA or OST component responsible for a proposed rulemaking is required to publish an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
Federal Register
, or whenever the RRTF determines it appropriate to publish an ANPRM, the ANPRM shall:

(1) Include a written statement identifying, at a minimum:

(i) The nature and significance of the problem the OA or OST component may address with a rule;

(ii) The legal authority under which a rule may be proposed; and

(iii) Any preliminary information available to the OA or OST component that may support one or another potential approach
to addressing the identified problem;

(2) Solicit written data, analysis, views, and recommendations from interested persons concerning the information and issues
addressed in the ANPRM; and

(3) Provide for a reasonably sufficient period for public comment.

(h) Notices of proposed rulemaking —(1) When required. Before determining to propose a rule and following completion of the ANPRM process under paragraph (g) of this section, if
applicable, the responsible OA or OST component shall consult with the RRTF concerning the need for the potential rule. If
the RRTF thereafter determines it appropriate to propose a rule, the proposing OA or OST component shall publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register
, unless a controlling statute provides otherwise or unless the RRTF (in consultation with OIRA, as appropriate) determines
that an NPRM is not necessary under established exceptions.

(2) Contents. The NPRM shall include, at a minimum:

(i) A statement of the time and place for submission of public comments and the time, place, and nature of related public
rulemaking proceedings, if any;

(ii) Reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed;

(iii) The terms of the proposed rule;

(iv) A description of information known to the proposing OA or OST component on the subject and issues of the proposed rule,
including but not limited to:

(A) A summary of material information known to the OA or OST component concerning the proposed rule and the considerations
specified in § 5.11(a);

(B) A summary of any preliminary risk assessment or regulatory impact analysis performed by the OA or OST component; and

(C) Information specifically identifying all material data, studies, models, available voluntary consensus standards and conformity
assessment requirements, and other evidence or information considered or used by the OA or OST component in connection with
its determination to propose the rule;

(v) A reasoned preliminary analysis of the need for the proposed rule based on the information described in the preamble to
the NPRM, and an additional statement of whether a rule is required by statute;

(vi) A reasoned preliminary analysis indicating that the expected economic benefits of the proposed rule will meet the relevant
statutory objectives and will outweigh the estimated costs of the proposed rule in accordance with any applicable statutory
requirements;

(vii) If the rulemaking is significant, a summary discussion of:

(A) The alternatives to the proposed rule considered by the OA or OST component;

(B) The relative costs and benefits of those alternatives;

(C) Whether the alternatives would meet relevant statutory objectives; and

(D) Why the OA or OST component chose not to propose or pursue the alternatives;

(viii) A statement of whether existing rules have created or contributed to the problem the OA or OST component seeks to address
with the proposed rule, and, if so, whether or not the OA or OST component proposes to amend or rescind any such rules and
why; and

(ix) All other statements and analyses required by law, including, without limitation, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601-612) or any amendment thereto.

(3) Information access and quality. (i) To inform public comment when the NPRM is published, the proposing OA or OST component shall place in the docket for the
proposed rule and make accessible to the public, including by electronic means, all material information relied upon by the
OA or OST component in considering the proposed rule (including public complaints) unless public disclosure of the information
is prohibited by law or the information would be exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Material provided electronically
should be made available in accordance with the requirements of 29 U.S.C. 794d (section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
as amended).

(ii) If the proposed rule rests upon scientific, technical, economic, or other specialized factual information, the proposing
OA or OST component shall base the proposal on the best and most relevant scientific, technical, economic, and other specialized
factual information reasonably available to the Department and shall identify the sources and availability of such information
in the NPRM.

(iii) A single copy of any relevant copyrighted material (including consensus standards and other relevant scientific or technical
information) should be placed in the docket for public review if such material was relied on as a basis for the rulemaking.

(i) Public comment. (1) Following publication of an NPRM, the Department will provide interested persons a fair and sufficient opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, analysis, views, and recommendations.

(2) The Department, in coordination with OIRA for significant rulemakings, will ensure that the public is given an

adequate period for comment, taking into account the scope and nature of the issues and considerations involved in the proposed
regulatory action.

(3) Generally, absent special considerations to be described in the NPRM, the comment period for nonsignificant DOT rules
should be at least 30 days, and typically the comment period for significant DOT rules should be 60 days.

(4) Any person may petition the responsible OA or OST component for an extension of time to submit comments in response to
a notice of proposed rulemaking. Petitions must be received no later than 3 days before the expiration of the time stated
in the notice. The filing of the petition does not automatically extend the time for comments. The OA or OST component may
grant the petition only if the petitioner shows a substantive interest in the proposed rule and good cause for the extension,
or if the extension is otherwise in the public interest. The OA or OST component should notify the public, as early as practicable
by publication in the
Federal Register
and inclusion in the docket, whether the extension has been granted or denied. The OA or OST component may notify the public
of the disposition of a petition through other appropriate means, including posting on its website.

(5) All timely comments are considered before final action is taken on a rulemaking proposal. Late-filed comments may be considered
so far as possible without incurring additional expense or delay.

(j) Exemptions from notice and comment. (1) Except when prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are required by statute or determined by the Secretary
to be advisable for policy or programmatic reasons, the responsible OA or OST component may, subject to the approval of the
RRTF (in consultation with OIRA, as appropriate), publish certain final rules in the
Federal Register
without prior notice and comment. These may include:

(i) Rules of interpretation and rules addressing only DOT organization, procedure, or practice, provided such rules do not
alter substantive obligations for parties outside the Department;

(ii) Rules for which notice and comment is unnecessary to inform the rulemaking, such as rules correcting de minimis technical
or clerical errors or rules addressing other minor and insubstantial matters, provided the reasons to forgo public comment
are explained in the preamble to the final rule; and

(iii) Rules that require finalization without delay, such as rules to address an urgent safety or national security need,
and other rules for which it would be impracticable or contrary to public policy to accommodate a period of public comment,
provided the responsible OA or OST component makes findings that good cause exists to forgo public comment and explains those
findings in the preamble to the final rule.

(2) Except when required by statute, issuing substantive DOT rules without completing notice and comment, including as interim
final rules (IFRs) and direct final rules (DFRs), must be the exception. IFRs and DFRs are not favored. DFRs must follow the
procedures in paragraph (l) of this section. In most cases where an OA or OST component has issued an IFR, the RRTF will expect
the OA or OST component to proceed at the earliest opportunity to replace the IFR with a final rule.

(k) Final rules. The responsible OA or OST component shall adopt a final rule only after consultation with the RRTF. The final rule, which
shall include the text of the rule as adopted along with a supporting preamble, shall be published in the
Federal Register
and shall satisfy the following requirements:

(1) The preamble to the final rule shall include:

(i) A concise, general statement of the rule's basis and purpose, including clear reference to the legal authority supporting
the rule;

(ii) A reasoned, concluding determination by the adopting OA or OST component regarding each of the considerations required
to be addressed in an NPRM under paragraphs (h)(2)(v) through (ix) of this section;

(iii) A response to each significant issue raised in the comments to the proposed rule;

(iv) If the final rule has changed in significant respects from the rule as proposed in the NPRM, an explanation of the changes
and the reasons why the changes are needed or are more appropriate to advance the objectives identified in the rulemaking;
and

(v) A reasoned, final determination that the information upon which the OA or OST component bases the rule complies with the
Information Quality Act (section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554, Appendix C, 114 Stat. 2763A-153-54), or any subsequent amendment
thereto.

(2) If the rule rests on scientific, technical, economic, or other specialized factual information, the OA or OST component
shall base the final rule on the best and most relevant evidence and data known to the Department and shall ensure that such
information is clearly identified in the preamble to the final rule and is available to the public in the rulemaking record,
subject to reasonable protections for information exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If the OA or OST component
intends to support the final rule with specialized factual information identified after the close of the comment period, the
OA or OST component shall allow an additional opportunity for public comment on such information.

(3) All final rules issued by the Department:

(i) Shall be written in plain and understandable English;

(ii) Shall be based on a reasonable and well-founded interpretation of relevant statutory text and shall not depend upon a
strained or unduly broad reading of statutory authority; and

(iii) Shall not be inconsistent or incompatible with, or unnecessarily duplicative of, other Federal regulations.

(4) Effective dates for final rules must adhere to the following:

(i) Unless required to address a safety emergency or otherwise required by law, approved by the RRTF (or RRO), or approved
by the Director of OMB (as appropriate), no regulation may be issued by an OA or component of OST if it was not included on
the most recent version or update of the published Unified Agenda.

(ii) No significant regulatory action may take effect until it has appeared in the Unified Agenda for at least 6 months prior
to its issuance, unless good cause exists for an earlier effective date or the action is otherwise approved by the RRTF (or
RRO).

(iii) Absent good cause, major rules (as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808) cannot take effect until
60 days after publication in the
Federal Register
or submission to Congress, whichever is later. Nonmajor rules cannot take effect any sooner than submission to Congress.

(l) Direct final rules. (1) Rules that the OA or OST component determines to be noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse public comment
may be published as direct final rules. These include noncontroversial rules that:

(i) Affect internal procedures of the Department, such as filing requirements and rules governing inspection and copying of
documents;

(ii) Are nonsubstantive clarifications or corrections to existing rules;

(iii) Update existing forms;

(iv) Make minor changes in the substantive rules regarding statistics and reporting requirements;

(v) Make changes to the rules implementing the Privacy Act; or

(vi) Adopt technical standards set by outside organizations.

(2) The
Federal Register
document will state that any adverse comment must be received in writing by the OA or OST component within the specified time
after the date of publication and that, if no written adverse comment is received, the rule will become effective a specified
number of days after the date of publication.

(3) If no written adverse comment is received by the OA or OST component within the original or extended comment period, the
OA or OST component will publish a notice in the
Federal Register
indicating that no adverse comment was received and confirming that the rule will become effective on the date that was indicated
in the direct final rule.

(4) If the OA or OST component receives any written adverse comment within the specified time of publication in the
Federal Register
, the OA or OST component may proceed as follows:

(i) Publish a document withdrawing the direct final rule in the rules and regulations section of the
Federal Register
and, if the OA or OST component decides a rulemaking is warranted, a proposed rule; or

(ii) Any other means permitted under the Administrative Procedure Act.

(5) An “adverse” comment for the purpose of this subpart means any comment that the OA or OST component determines is critical
of the rule, suggests that the rule should not be adopted or suggests a material change that should be made in the rule. A
comment suggesting that the policy or requirements of the rule should or should not also be extended to other Departmental
programs outside the scope of the rule is not adverse. A notice of intent to submit an adverse comment is not, in and of itself,
an adverse comment.

(m) Reports to Congress and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). For each final rule adopted by DOT, the responsible OA or OST component shall submit the reports to Congress and GAO to comply
with the procedures specified by 5 U.S.C. 801 (the Congressional Review Act), or any subsequent amendment thereto.

(n) Negotiated rulemakings. (1) DOT negotiated rulemakings are to be conducted in accordance with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 561-571, and
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10, as applicable.

(2) Before initiating a negotiated rulemaking process, the OA or OST component should:

(i) Assess whether using negotiated rulemaking procedures for the proposed rule in question is in the public interest, in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 563(a), and present these findings to the RRTF;

(ii) Consult with the Office of Regulation and Legislation on the appropriateness of negotiated rulemaking and the procedures
therefor; and

(iii) Receive the approval of the RRTF for the use of negotiated rulemaking.

(3) Unless otherwise approved by the General Counsel, all DOT negotiated rulemakings should involve the assistance of a convener
and a facilitator, as provided in the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. A convener is a person who impartially assists the agency
in determining whether establishment of a negotiated rulemaking committee is feasible and appropriate in a particular rulemaking.
A facilitator is a person who impartially aids in the discussions and negotiations among members of a negotiated rulemaking
committee to develop a proposed rule. The same person may serve as both convener and facilitator.

(4) All charters, membership appointments, and
Federal Register
notices must be approved by the Secretary. Any operating procedures (e.g., bylaws) for negotiated rulemaking committees must be approved by OGC.

§ 5.15 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). (a) Fall editions of the Unified Agenda include the Regulatory Plan, which presents the Department's statement of regulatory
priorities for the coming year. Fall editions also include the outcome and status of the Department's reviews of existing
regulations, conducted in accordance with § 5.13(d).

(b) The OAs and components of OST with rulemaking authority must:

(1) Carefully consider the principles contained in E.O. 14192, E.O. 13777, and E.O. 12866 in the preparation of all submissions
for the Unified Agenda;

(2) Ensure that all data pertaining to the OA's or OST component's regulatory and deregulatory actions are accurately reflected
in the Department's Unified Agenda submission; and

(3) Timely submit all data to the Office of Regulation and Legislation in accordance with the deadlines and procedures communicated
by that office.

§ 5.17 Special procedures for economically significant and high-impact rulemakings. (a) Definitions. (1) Economically significant rule means a significant rule likely to impose:

(i) A total annual cost on the U.S. economy (without regard to estimated benefits) of $100 million or more; or

(ii) A total net loss of at least 75,000 full-time jobs in the U.S. over the five years following the effective date of the
rule (not counting any jobs relating to new regulatory compliance).

(2) High-impact rule means a significant rule likely to impose:

(i) A total annual cost on the U.S. economy (without regard to estimated benefits) of $500 million or more; or

(ii) A total net loss of at least 250,000 full-time jobs in the U.S. over the five years following the effective date of the
rule (not counting any jobs relating to new regulatory compliance).

(b) ANPRM or SNPRM required. Unless directed otherwise by the RRTF or otherwise required by law, in the case of a rulemaking for an economically significant
rule or a high-impact rule, the proposing OA or OST component shall publish an ANPRM or SNPRM in the
Federal Register
.

(c) Additional requirements for NPRM. (1) In addition to the requirements set forth in § 5.13, an NPRM for an economically significant rule or a high-impact rule
shall include a discussion explaining an achievable objective for the rule and the metrics by which the OA or OST component
will measure progress toward that objective to assess the rule's effectiveness under paragraph (f)(3) of this section.

(2) Absent unusual circumstances and unless approved by the RRTF (in consultation with OIRA, as appropriate), the comment
period for an economically significant rule shall be at least 60 days and for a high-impact rule at least 90 days. If a rule
is determined to be an economically significant rule or high-impact rule after the publication of the NPRM, the responsible
OA or OST component shall publish a notice in the
Federal Register
that informs the public of the change in classification and discusses the achievable objective for the rule and the metrics
by which the OA or OST component will measure progress toward that objective under § 5.17(c)(1), and shall extend or reopen
the comment period by not less than 30 days and allow further public comment as appropriate, including comment on the change
in classification.

(d) Procedures for formal hearings —(1) Petitions for hearings. Following publication of an NPRM for an economically significant rule or a high-impact rule, and before the close of the comment
period, any interested party may file in the rulemaking docket a petition asking the proposing OA or OST component to hold
a formal

hearing on the proposed rule in accordance with this section.

(2) Mandatory hearing for high-impact rule. In the case of a proposed high-impact rule, the responsible OA or OST component shall grant the petition for a formal hearing
if the petition makes a plausible prima facie showing that:

(i) The proposed rule depends on conclusions concerning one or more specific scientific, technical, economic, or other complex
factual issues that are genuinely in dispute or that may not satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act;

(ii) The ordinary public comment process is unlikely to provide the OA or OST component an adequate examination of the issues
to permit a fully informed judgment on the dispute; and

(iii) The resolution of the disputed factual issues would likely have a material effect on the costs and benefits of the proposed
rule or on whether the proposed rule would achieve the statutory purpose.

(3) Authority to deny hearing for economically significant rule. In the case of a proposed economically significant rule, the responsible OA or OST component may deny a petition for a formal
hearing that includes the showing described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section but only if the OA or OST component reasonably
determines that:

(i) The requested hearing would not advance the consideration of the proposed rule and the OA's or OST component's ability
to make the rulemaking determinations required under this subpart; or

(ii) The hearing would unreasonably delay completion of the rulemaking in light of a compelling safety need or an express
statutory mandate for prompt regulatory action.

(4) Denial of petition. If the OA or OST component denies a petition for a formal hearing under this section in whole or in part, the OA or OST component
shall include a detailed explanation of the factual basis for the denial in the rulemaking record, including findings on each
of the relevant factors identified in paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section. The denial of a good faith petition for a formal
hearing under this section shall be disfavored.

(5) Notice and scope of hearing. If the OA or OST component grants a petition for a formal hearing under this section, the OA or OST component shall publish
notification of the hearing in the
Federal Register
not less than 45 days before the date of the hearing. The document shall specify the proposed rule at issue and the specific
factual issues to be considered in the hearing. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the factual issues specified
in the notice.

(6) Hearing process. (i) A formal hearing for purposes of this section shall be conducted using procedures borrowed from 5 U.S.C. 556 and 5 U.S.C.
557, or similar procedures as approved by the Secretary, and interested parties shall have a reasonable opportunity to participate
in the hearing through the presentation of testimony and written submissions.

(ii) The OA or OST component shall arrange for an administrative judge or other neutral administrative hearing officer to
preside over the hearing and shall provide a reasonable opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses at the hearing.

(iii) After the formal hearing and before the record of the hearing is closed, the presiding hearing officer shall render
a report containing findings and conclusions addressing the disputed issues of fact identified in the hearing notice and specifically
advising on the accuracy and sufficiency of the factual information in the record relating to those disputed issues on which
the OA or OST component proposes to base the rule.

(iv) Interested parties who have participated in the hearing shall be given an opportunity to file statements of agreement
or objection in response to the hearing officer's report, and the complete record of the proceeding shall be made part of
the rulemaking record.

(7) Actions following hearing. (i) Following completion of the formal hearing process, the responsible OA or OST component shall consider the record of the
hearing and, subject to the approval of the RRTF (in consultation with OIRA, as appropriate), shall make a reasoned determination
whether:

(A) To terminate the rulemaking;

(B) To proceed with the rulemaking as proposed; or

(C) To modify the proposed rule.

(ii) If the decision is made to terminate the rulemaking, the OA or OST component shall publish a notice in the
Federal Register
announcing the decision and explaining the reasons therefor.

(iii) If the decision is made to finalize the proposed rule without material modifications, the OA or OST component shall
explain the reasons for its decision and its responses to the hearing record in the preamble to the final rule, in accordance
with paragraph (e) of this section.

(iv) If the decision is made to modify the proposed rule in material respects, the OA or OST component shall, subject to the
approval of the RRTF (in consultation with OIRA, as appropriate), publish a new or supplemental NPRM in the
Federal Register
explaining the OA's or OST component's responses to and analysis of the hearing record, setting forth the modifications to
the proposed rule, and providing an additional reasonable opportunity for public comment on the proposed modified rule.

(8) Relationship to interagency process. The formal hearing procedures under this section shall not impede or interfere with OIRA's interagency review process for
the proposed rulemaking.

(e) Additional requirements for final rules. (1) In addition to the requirements set forth in § 5.13(k), the preamble to a final economically significant rule or a final
high-impact rule shall include:

(i) A discussion explaining the OA's or OST component's reasoned final determination that the rule as adopted is necessary
to achieve the objective identified in the NPRM in light of the full administrative record and does not deviate from the metrics
previously identified by the OA or OST component for measuring progress toward that objective; and

(ii) In accordance with paragraph (d)(7)(iii) of this section, the OA's or OST component's responses to and analysis of the
record of any formal hearing held under paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) Absent exceptional circumstances and unless approved by the RRTF or Secretary (in consultation with OIRA, as appropriate),
the OA or OST component shall adopt as a final economically significant rule or final high-impact rule the least costly regulatory
alternative that achieves the relevant objectives.

(f) Additional requirements for retrospective reviews. For each economically significant rule or high-impact rule, the responsible OA or OST component shall publish a regulatory
impact report in the
Federal Register
every 5 years after the effective date of the rule while the rule remains in effect. The regulatory impact report shall include,
at a minimum:

(1) An assessment of the impacts, including any costs, of the rule on regulated entities;

(2) A determination about how the actual costs and benefits of the rule have varied from those anticipated at the time the
rule was issued; and

(3) An assessment of the effectiveness and benefits of the rule in producing the regulatory objectives it was adopted to achieve.

(g) Waiver and modification. The procedures required by this section may

be waived or modified as necessary with the approval of the RRO or the Secretary.

§ 5.19 Public contacts in informal rulemaking. (a) Agency contacts with the public during informal rulemakings. (1) DOT personnel may have meetings or other contacts with interested members of the public concerning an informal rulemaking
under 5 U.S.C. 553 or similar procedures at any stage of the rulemaking process, provided the substance of material information
submitted by the public that DOT relies on in proposing or finalizing the rule is adequately disclosed and described in a
memorandum in the public rulemaking docket such that all interested parties have notice of the information and an opportunity
to comment on its accuracy and relevance. The responsible OA or OST component may either prepare the memorandum or ask the
party requesting the meeting or initiating the contact to submit the memorandum memorializing the communication.

(2) DOT personnel should avoid giving persons outside the executive branch information regarding the rulemaking that is not
available generally to the public.

(3) If DOT receives an unusually large number of requests for meetings with interested members of the public during the comment
period for a proposed rule or after the close of the comment period, the issuing OA or component of OST should consider whether
there is a need to extend or reopen the comment period, to allow for submission of a second round of “reply comments,” or
to hold a public meeting on the proposed rule.

(4) If the issuing OA or OST component meets with interested persons on the rulemaking after the close of the comment period,
it should be open to giving other interested persons a similar opportunity to meet.

(5) If DOT learns of significant new information, such as new studies or data, after the close of the comment period that
the issuing OA or OST component wishes to rely upon in finalizing the rule, the OA or OST component should reopen the comment
period to give the public an opportunity to comment on the new information. If the new information is likely to result in
a change to the rule that is not within the scope of the NPRM, the OA or OST component should consider issuing a Supplemental
NPRM to ensure that the final rule represents a logical outgrowth of DOT's proposal.

(b) Contacts during OIRA review. (1) E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 lay out the procedures for review of significant regulations by OIRA, which include a process
for members of the public to request meetings with OIRA regarding rules under OIRA review. Per E.O. 12866, OIRA invites the
Department to attend these meetings. The Office of Regulation and Legislation will forward these invitations to the appropriate
regulatory contact in the OA or component of OST responsible for issuing the regulation.

(2) If the issuing OA or OST component wishes to attend the OIRA-sponsored meeting or if its participation is determined to
be necessary by the Office of Regulation and Legislation, the regulatory contact should identify to the Office of Regulation
and Legislation up to two individuals from the OA or OST component who will attend the meeting along with a representative
from the Office of Regulation and Legislation. Attendance at these meetings can be by phone or in person. These OIRA meetings
are generally listening sessions for DOT.

(3) The attending DOT personnel should refrain from debating particular points regarding the rulemaking and should avoid disclosing
the contents of a document or proposed regulatory action that has not yet been disclosed to the public, but may answer questions
of fact regarding a public document.

(4) Following the OIRA meeting, the attendee(s) from the issuing OA or OST component will draft a summary report of the meeting
and submit it to the Office of Regulation and Legislation for review. After the report is reviewed and finalized in coordination
with the Office of Regulation and Legislation, the responsible OA or OST component will place the final report in the rulemaking
docket.

§ 5.21 Policy updates and revisions. This subpart shall be reviewed from time to time to reflect improvements in the rulemaking process or changes in Administration
policy.

Subpart C—Guidance Procedures

§ 5.25 General. (a) This subpart governs all DOT employees and contractors involved with all phases of issuing DOT guidance documents.

(b) Subject to the qualifications and exemptions contained in this subpart, these procedures apply to all guidance documents
issued by all components of the Department after the effective date of this subpart.

(c) For purposes of this subpart, the term guidance document includes an agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties,
that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation,
but which is not intended to have the force or effect of law in its own right and is not otherwise required by statute to
satisfy the rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 or 5 U.S.C. 556. The term is not confined to formal written documents;
guidance may come in a variety of forms, including (but not limited to) letters, memoranda, circulars, bulletins, advisories,
and may include video, audio, and Web-based formats. See OMB Bulletin 07-02, “Agency Good Guidance Practices,” (January 25, 2007) (“OMB Good Guidance Bulletin”).

(d) This subpart does not apply to:

(1) Rules exempt from rulemaking requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(a);

(2) Rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice;

(3) Decisions of agency adjudications under 5 U.S.C. 554 or similar statutory provisions;

(4) Internal executive branch legal advice or legal advisory opinions addressed to executive branch officials;

(5) Agency statements of specific applicability, including advisory or legal opinions directed to particular parties about
circumstance-specific questions (e.g., case or investigatory letters responding to complaints, warning letters), notices regarding particular locations or facilities
(e.g., guidance pertaining to the use, operation, or control of a Government facility or property), and correspondence with individual
persons or entities (e.g., congressional correspondence), except documents ostensibly directed to a particular party but designed to guide the conduct
of the broader regulated public;

(6) Legal briefs, other court filings, or positions taken in litigation or enforcement actions;

(7) Agency statements that do not set forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of
a statute or regulation, including speeches and individual presentations, editorials, media interviews, press materials, or
congressional testimony that do not set forth for the first time a new regulatory policy;

(8) Guidance pertaining to military or foreign affairs functions;

(9) Grant solicitations and awards;

(10) Contract solicitations and awards; or

(11) Purely internal agency policies or guidance directed solely to DOT employees or contractors or to other Federal agencies
that are not intended to

have substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties.

§ 5.27 Review and clearance by Chief Counsels and the Office of the General Counsel. All DOT guidance documents, as defined in § 5.25(c), require review and clearance in accordance with this subpart.

(a) Guidance proposed to be issued by an OA of the Department must be reviewed and cleared by the OA's Office of Chief Counsel.
In addition, as provided elsewhere in this subpart, some OA guidance documents will require review and clearance by OGC.

(b) Guidance proposed to be issued by a component of OST must be reviewed and cleared by OGC.

§ 5.29 Requirements for clearance. DOT's review and clearance of guidance shall ensure that each guidance document proposed to be issued by an OA or component
of OST satisfies the following requirements:

(a) The guidance document complies with all relevant statutes and regulation (including any statutory deadlines for agency
action);

(b) The guidance document identifies or includes:

(1) The term “guidance” or its functional equivalent;

(2) The issuing OA or component of OST;

(3) A unique identifier, including, at a minimum, the date of issuance and title of the document and its Z-RIN, if applicable;

(4) The activity or entities to which the guidance applies;

(5) Citations to applicable statutes and regulations;

(6) A statement noting whether the guidance is intended to revise or replace any previously issued guidance and, if so, sufficient
information to identify the previously issued guidance; and

(7) A short summary of the subject matter covered in the guidance document at the top of the document;

(c) The guidance document avoids using mandatory language, such as “shall,” “must,” “required,” or “requirement,” unless the
language is describing an established statutory or regulatory requirement or is addressed to DOT staff and will not foreclose
the Department's consideration of positions advanced by affected private parties;

(d) The guidance document is written in plain and understandable English;

(e) All guidance documents include a clear and prominent statement declaring that the contents of the document do not have
the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way, and the document is intended only to provide
clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies, and compliance may be achieved in
more than one way; and

(f) The guidance document describes several performance-based ways the public can comply with the underlying legal requirement,
whenever appropriate, rather than specifying only one means of compliance.

§ 5.31 Public access to effective guidance documents. Each OA and component of OST responsible for issuing guidance documents shall:

(a) Ensure all effective guidance documents, identified by a unique identifier which includes, at a minimum, the document's
title and date of issuance or revision and its Z-RIN, if applicable, are on its website in a single, searchable, indexed
database, and available to the public in accordance with 49 CFR 7.12(a)(2);

(b) Note on its website that guidance documents lack the force and effect of law, except as authorized by law or as incorporated
into a contract;

(c) Maintain and advertise on its website how the public may comment electronically on any guidance documents that are subject
to the notice-and-comment procedures described in § 5.41 and to submit requests electronically for issuance, reconsideration,
modification, or rescission of guidance documents in accordance with § 5.43; and

(d) Designate an office to receive and address complaints from the public that the OA or OST component is not following the
requirements of OMB's Good Guidance Bulletin or is improperly treating a guidance document as a binding requirement.

§ 5.33 Good faith cost estimates. Even though not legally binding, some agency guidance may result in a substantial economic impact. For example, the issuance
of agency guidance may induce private parties to alter their conduct to conform to recommended standards or practices, thereby
incurring costs beyond the costs of complying with existing statutes and regulations. Though it may be difficult to predict
with precision the economic impact of voluntary guidance, the proposing OA or component of OST shall, to the extent practicable,
make a good faith effort to estimate the likely economic cost impact of the guidance document to determine whether the document
might be significant. When an OA or OST component is assessing or explaining whether it believes a guidance document is significant,
it should, at a minimum, provide the same level of analysis that would be required for a major determination under the Congressional
Review Act. See OMB Memorandum M-19-14, Guidance on Compliance with the Congressional Review Act (April 11, 2019). When an agency determines
that a guidance document will be economically significant, the OA or OST component should conduct and publish a Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the sort that would accompany an economically significant rulemaking, to the extent reasonably possible.

§ 5.35 Approved procedures for guidance documents identified as “significant” or “otherwise of importance to the Department's interests.” (a) For guidance proposed to be issued by an OA, if there is a reasonable possibility the guidance may be considered “significant”
or “otherwise of importance to the Department's interests” within the meaning of § 5.37 or if the OA is uncertain whether
the guidance may qualify as such, the OA should email a copy of the proposed guidance document (or a summary of it) to the
Office of Regulation and Legislation for review and further direction before issuance. Each proposed DOT guidance document
determined to be significant or otherwise of importance to the Department's interests must be approved by the Secretary before
issuance. In such instances, the Office of Regulation and Legislation will request that the proposing OA or component of OST
obtain a Z-RIN for departmental review and clearance through the New Environment for Information and Leadership on Rules (NEIL
Rules), or a successor data management system, and OGC will coordinate submission of the proposed guidance document to the
Secretary for approval.

(b) As with significant regulations, OGC will submit significant DOT guidance documents to OMB for coordinated review. In
addition, OGC may determine that it is appropriate to coordinate with OMB in the review of guidance documents that are otherwise
of importance to the Department's interests.

(c) If the guidance document is determined not to be either significant or otherwise of importance to the Department's interests
within the meaning of § 5.37, the Office of Regulation and Legislation will advise the proposing OA or component of OST to
proceed with issuance of the guidance either through the Office of the Executive Secretariat (for

Federal

Register

notices) or through its standard clearance process. For each guidance document coordinated through the Office of the Executive
Secretariat, the issuing OA or component of OST should include a statement in the action memorandum indicating that the guidance
document has been reviewed and cleared in accordance with this process.

§ 5.37 Definitions of “significant guidance document” and guidance documents that are “otherwise of importance to the Department's
interests.” (a) 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.

(b) The term significant guidance document does not include the categories of documents excluded by § 5.25(b) or any other category of guidance documents exempted in
writing by OGC in consultation with OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

(c) Significant and economically significant guidance documents must be reviewed by OIRA under E.O. 12866 before issuance;
and must demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements for regulations or rules, including significant regulatory
actions, set forth in E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, E.O. 13609, E.O. 13777, and E.O. 14192.

(d) Even if not “significant,” a guidance document will be considered “otherwise of importance to the Department's interests”
within the meaning of this paragraph (d) if it may reasonably be anticipated:

(1) To relate to a major program, policy, or activity of the Department or a high-profile issue pending for decision before
the Department;

(2) To involve one of the Secretary's top policy priorities;

(3) To garner significant press or congressional attention; or

(4) To raise significant questions or concerns from constituencies of importance to the Department, such as committees of
Congress, States or Indian Tribes, the White House or other departments of the executive branch, courts, consumer or public
interest groups, or leading representatives of industry.

§ 5.39 Designation procedures. (a) The Office of Regulation and Legislation may request an OA or OST component to prepare a designation request for certain
guidance documents. Designation requests must include the following information:

(1) A summary of the guidance document; and

(2) The OA or OST component's recommended designation of “not significant,” “significant,” or “economically significant,”
as well as a justification for that designation.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the Office of Regulation and Legislation will seek significance
determinations from OIRA for certain guidance documents, as appropriate, in the same manner as for rulemakings. Prior to publishing
these guidance documents, and with sufficient time to allow OIRA to review the document in the event that a significance determination
is made, the Office of Regulation and Legislation should provide OIRA with an opportunity to review the designation request
or the guidance document, if requested, to determine if it meets the definition of “significant” or “economically significant”
under Executive Order 13891.

(c) Unless they present novel issues, significant risks, interagency considerations, unusual circumstances, or other unique
issues, the categories of guidance documents found in Appendix A (1) do not require designation by OIRA.

§ 5.41 Notice-and-comment procedures. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all proposed DOT guidance documents determined to be a “significant
guidance document” within the meaning of § 5.37 shall be subject to the following informal notice-and-comment procedures.
The issuing OA or component of OST shall publish a notice in the
Federal Register
announcing that a draft of the proposed guidance document is publicly available, shall post the draft guidance document either
in the
Federal Register
or on its website, shall invite public comment on the draft document for a minimum of 30 days, and shall prepare and post
a public response to major concerns raised in the comments, as appropriate, either in the
Federal Register
or on its website, either before or when the guidance document is finalized and issued.

(b) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section will not apply to any significant guidance document or categories of
significant guidance documents for which OGC finds, in consultation with OIRA, the proposing OA or component of OST, and the
Secretary, good cause that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest
(and incorporates the finding of good cause and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the guidance issued). Unless OGC
advises otherwise in writing, the categories of guidance documents listed in Appendix A (1) will be exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) Where appropriate, OGC or the proposing OA or component of OST may recommend to the Secretary that a particular guidance
document that is otherwise of importance to the Department's interests shall also be subject to the informal notice-and-comment
procedures described in paragraph (a) of this section.

§ 5.43 Petitions for guidance. Any person may petition an OA or OST component to withdraw or modify a particular guidance document by using the procedures
found in § 5.13(c). The OA or OST component should respond to all requests in a timely manner, but no later than 90 days after
receipt of the request.

§ 5.45 Rescinded guidance. No OA or component of OST may cite, use, or rely on guidance documents that are rescinded, except to establish historical
facts.

§ 5.47 Exigent circumstances. In emergency situations or when the issuing OA or component of OST is required by statutory deadline or court order to act
more quickly than normal review procedures allow, the issuing

OA or component of OST shall coordinate with OGC to notify OIRA as soon as possible and, to the extent practicable, shall
comply with the requirements of this subpart at the earliest opportunity. Wherever practicable, the issuing OA or component
of OST should schedule its proceedings to permit sufficient time to comply with the procedures set forth in this subpart.

§ 5.49 Reports to Congress and GAO. Unless otherwise determined in writing by OGC, it is the policy of the Department that upon issuing a guidance document determined
to be “significant” within the meaning of section 5.37, the issuing OA or component of OST will submit a report to Congress
and GAO in accordance with the procedures described in 5 U.S.C. 801 (the “Congressional Review Act”).

Subpart D—Enforcement Procedures

§ 5.53 General. The requirements set forth in this subpart apply to all enforcement actions taken by each DOT operating administration (OA)
and each component of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) with enforcement authority.

§ 5.55 Enforcement attorney responsibilities. All attorneys of OST and the OAs involved in enforcement activities are responsible for carrying out and adhering to the policies
set forth in this subpart. All supervising attorneys with responsibility over enforcement adjudications, administrative enforcement
proceedings, and other enforcement actions are accountable for the successful implementation of these policies and for reviewing
and monitoring compliance with this subpart by the employees under their supervision. These responsibilities include taking
all steps necessary to ensure that the Department provides a fair and impartial process at each stage of enforcement actions.
The Office of Litigation and Enforcement within the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is delegated authority to interpret
this subpart and provide guidance on compliance with its policies. The Office of Litigation and Enforcement shall exercise
this authority in coordination with the Chief Counsels of the OAs and subject to the direction and supervision of the General
Counsel.

§ 5.57 Definitions. Administrative enforcement proceeding is to be interpreted broadly, consistent with applicable law and regulations, and includes, but is not limited to, administrative
civil penalty proceedings; proceedings involving potential cease-and-desist or corrective action orders; preemption proceedings;
safety rating appeals; pilot and mechanic revocation proceedings; grant suspensions, terminations, or other actions to remedy
violations of grant conditions; and similar enforcement-related proceedings.

Administrative law judges (ALJs) are adjudicatory hearing officers appointed by a department head to serve as triers of fact in formal and informal
administrative proceedings and to issue recommended decisions in adjudications. At DOT, ALJs are to be appointed by the Secretary
of Transportation and assigned to the Office of Hearings.

Adversarial personnel are those persons who represent a party (including the agency) or a position or interest at issue in an enforcement action
taken or proposed to be taken by or for an agency. They include the agency's employees who investigate, prosecute, or advocate
on behalf of the agency in connection with the enforcement action.

Decisional personnel are employees of the agency responsible for issuing decisions arising out of the agency's enforcement actions, which include
formal or informal enforcement adjudications. These employees include ALJs, hearing officers, Administrative Judges (AJs),
and agency employees who advise and assist such decision makers.

Due process means procedural rights and protections afforded by the Government to affected parties to provide for a fair process in the
enforcement of legal obligations, including in connection with agency actions determining a violation of law, assessing a
civil penalty, requiring a party to take corrective action or to cease and desist from conduct, or otherwise depriving a party
of a property or liberty interest. Due process always includes two essential elements for a party subject to an agency enforcement
action: adequate notice of the proposed agency enforcement action and a meaningful opportunity to be heard by the agency decision
maker.

Enabling act means the Federal statute that defines the scope of an agency's authority and authorizes it to undertake an enforcement action.

Enforcement action means an action taken by the Department upon its own initiative or at the request of an affected party in furtherance of its
statutory authority and responsibility to execute and ensure compliance with applicable laws. Such actions include administrative
enforcement proceedings, enforcement adjudications, and judicial enforcement proceedings.

Enforcement adjudication is the administrative process undertaken by the agency to resolve the legal rights and obligations of specific parties with
regard to a particular enforcement issue pending before an agency. The outcome of an enforcement adjudication is a formal
or informal decision issued by an appropriate decision maker. Enforcement adjudications require the opportunity for participation
by directly affected parties and the right to present a response to a decision maker, including relevant evidence and reasoned
arguments.

Formal enforcement adjudication means an adjudication required by statute to be conducted “on the record.” The words “on the record” generally refer to a
decision issued by an agency after a proceeding conducted before an ALJ (or the agency head sitting as judge or other presiding
employee who is not an ALJ) using trial-type procedures. It is usually the agency's enabling act, not the APA, that determines
whether a formal hearing is required.

Informal enforcement adjudication means an adjudication that is not required to be conducted “on the record” with trial-like procedures. The APA provides agencies
with a substantial degree of flexibility in establishing practices and procedures for the conduct of informal adjudications.

Investigators, inspectors, and special agents refer to those agency employees or agents responsible for the investigation and review of an affected party's compliance with
the regulations and other legal requirements administered by the agency.

Judicial enforcement proceeding means a proceeding conducted in an Article III court, in which the Department is seeking to enforce an applicable statute,
regulation, or order.

Procedural regulations are agency regulations setting forth the procedures to be followed during adjudications consistent with the agency's enabling
act, the APA, and other applicable laws.

§ 5.59 Enforcement policy generally. It is the policy of the Department to provide affected parties appropriate due process in all enforcement actions. In the
course of such actions and proceedings, the Department's conduct must be fair and free of bias and should conclude with a
well-documented decision as to violations alleged and any violations found to have been committed, the penalties or corrective

actions to be imposed for such violations, and the steps needed to ensure future compliance. It is in the public interest
and fundamental to good government that the Department carry out its enforcement responsibilities in a fair and just manner.
No person should be subject to an administrative enforcement action or adjudication absent prior public notice of both the
enforcing agency's jurisdiction over particular conduct and the legal standards applicable to that conduct. The Department
should, where feasible, foster greater private-sector cooperation in enforcement, promote information sharing with the private
sector, and establish predictable outcomes for private conduct.

§ 5.61 Investigative functions. DOT's investigative powers must be used in a manner consistent with due process, basic fairness, and respect for individual
liberty and private property. Congress has granted the Secretary (and by delegation from the Secretary to the OAs) and the
FAA Administrator broad investigative powers, and it is an essential part of DOT's safety and consumer protection mission
to investigate compliance with the statutes and regulations administered by the Department, including through periodic inspections.
The OAs and components of OST with enforcement authority are appropriately given broad discretion in determining whether and
how to conduct investigations, periodic inspections, and other compliance reviews, and these investigative functions are often
performed by agency investigators or inspectors in the field. The employees and contractors of DOT responsible for inspections
and other investigative functions must not use these authorities as a game of “gotcha” with regulated entities and should
follow existing statutes and regulations. Rather, to the maximum extent consistent with protecting the integrity of the investigation,
the representatives of DOT should promptly disclose to the affected parties the reasons for the investigative review and any
compliance issues identified or findings made in the course of the review. The responsible enforcement attorneys within the
relevant OA or component of OST shall provide effective legal guidance to investigators and inspectors to ensure adherence
to the policies and procedures set forth in this part.

§ 5.63 Clear legal foundation. All DOT enforcement actions against affected parties seeking redress for asserted violations of a statute or regulation must
be founded on a grant of statutory authority in the relevant enabling act. The authority to prosecute the asserted violation
and the authority to impose monetary penalties, if sought, must be clear in the text of the statute. Unless the terms of a
relevant statute, or of a regulation with government-wide applicability such as 2 CFR part 180, clearly and expressly authorize
the OA or component of OST to enforce the relevant legal requirement directly through an administrative enforcement proceeding,
the proper forum for the enforcement action is Federal court, and the enforcement action must be initiated in court by attorneys
of the Department of Justice acting in coordination with DOT counsel.

§ 5.65 Proper exercise of prosecutorial and enforcement discretion. The Department's attorneys and policy makers have broad discretion in deciding whether to initiate an enforcement action.
Nevertheless, in exercising discretion to initiate an enforcement action and in the pursuit of that action, agency counsel
must not adopt or rely upon overly broad or unduly expansive interpretations of the governing statutes or regulations and
should ensure that the law is interpreted and applied according to its text. All decisions by DOT to prosecute or not to prosecute
an enforcement action should be based upon a reasonable interpretation of the law about which the public has received fair
notice and should be made with due regard for fairness, the facts and evidence adduced through an appropriate investigation
or compliance review, the availability of scarce resources, the administrative needs of the responsible OA or OST component,
Administration policy, and the importance of the issues involved to the fulfillment of the Department's statutory responsibilities.

§ 5.67 Duty to review for legal sufficiency. In accordance with established agency procedures, enforcement actions should be reviewed by the responsible agency component
for legal sufficiency under applicable statutes and regulations, judicial decisions, and other appropriate authorities. Though
it may not always be feasible or necessary for agency personnel to consult with counsel before initiating an enforcement action,
particularly since the OAs utilize a variety of enforcement personnel to staff their enforcement programs, including personnel
located in the field, agency personnel should ensure that the basis for an enforcement action is legally sufficient before
initiating it. If, in the opinion of the responsible agency component or its counsel, the evidence is sufficient to support
the assertion of violation(s), then the agency may proceed with the enforcement action. If the evidence is not sufficient
to support the proposed enforcement action, the agency may modify or amend the charges and bring an enforcement action in
line with the evidence or return the case to the enforcement staff for additional investigation. The reviewing attorney or
agency component may also recommend the closure of the case for lack of sufficient evidence. Attorneys at many of the OAs
issue Notices of Probable Violations, Notice of Claims, or Demand Letters to initiate enforcement proceedings. At other OAs,
these documents are issued by non-attorney program officials. The duty to review applies equally to all agency attorneys whether
deciding to issue a document to initiate enforcement proceedings or to continue to prosecute based upon a document previously
issued by a non-attorney program official. In the latter situation, it is important that attorneys provide legal input, training,
and review of the work product of the program office. At all times, DOT attorneys are encouraged to exercise their best professional
judgment in deciding to initiate, continue, or recommend closing a case, consistent with applicable legal and ethical standards.
The Department will not initiate enforcement actions as a “fishing expedition” to find potential violations of law in the
absence of sufficient evidence in hand to support the assertion of a violation.

§ 5.69 Fair notice. Notice to the regulated party is a due process requirement. All documents initiating an enforcement action shall ensure notice
reasonably calculated to inform the regulated party of the nature and basis for the action being taken to allow an opportunity
to challenge the action and to avoid unfair surprise. The notice should include legal authorities, statutes or regulations
allegedly violated, basic issues, key facts alleged, a clear statement of the grounds for the agency's action, and a reference
to or recitation of the procedural rights available to the party to challenge the agency action, including appropriate procedure
for seeking administrative and judicial review.

§ 5.71 Separation of functions. For those OAs or OST components whose regulations provide for a separation of decisional personnel from adversarial personnel
in an administrative enforcement proceeding, any agency personnel who have taken an active part in investigating, prosecuting,
or advocating in the

enforcement action should not serve as a decision maker and should not advise or assist the decision maker in that same or
a related case. In such proceedings, the agency's adversarial personnel should not furnish ex parte advice or factual materials
to decisional personnel. When and as necessary, agency employees involved in enforcement actions should consult legal counsel
and applicable regulations and ethical standards for further guidance on these requirements.

§ 5.73 Avoiding bias. Consistent with all applicable laws and ethical standards relating to recusals and disqualifications, no Federal employee
or contractor may participate in a DOT enforcement action in any capacity, including as ALJ, adjudication counsel, adversarial
personnel, or decisional personnel, if that person has:

(a) A financial or other personal interest that would be affected by the outcome of the enforcement action;

(b) Personal animus against a party to the action or against a group to which a party belongs;

(c) Prejudgment of the adjudicative facts at issue in the proceeding; or

(d) Any other prohibited conflict of interest.

§ 5.75 Representation of regulated parties. Subject to ethical standards governing post-Federal employment and applicable State bar requirements, regulated entities are
free to choose their representatives—attorney or non-attorney—who will represent them before an OST component or OA. Each
OST component or OA should assist pro se litigants and those who are unfamiliar with our procedures to the extent practical and allowable under ethical and State bar
requirements.

§ 5.77 Formal enforcement adjudications. When a case is referred by the decision maker to the Office of Hearings or another designated hearing officer for formal adjudication
(an “on the record” hearing), the assigned ALJ or hearing officer should use trial-type procedures consistent with applicable
legal provisions. In formal adjudication, the APA requires findings and reasons on all material issues of fact, law, or discretion
(policy). In all formal adjudications, the responsible OA or component of OST shall adhere faithfully and consistently to
the procedures established in the relevant procedural regulations. Agency counsel engaged in formal adjudications on behalf
of DOT are accountable for compliance with the requirements of this subpart.

§ 5.79 Informal enforcement adjudications. Even though informal adjudications do not require trial-type procedures, the responsible OA or component of OST should ordinarily
afford the applicant or the regulated entity that is the subject of the adjudication (as the case may be), as well as other
directly affected parties (if any), adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter under review, either through
an oral presentation or through a written submission. Except in cases of a safety emergency or when the clear text of the
relevant enabling act or government-wide regulation, such as 2 CFR part 180, expressly authorizes exigent enforcement action
without a prior hearing, the responsible OA or component of OST shall give the regulated entity appropriate advance notice
of the proposed enforcement action and shall advise the entity of the opportunity for an informal hearing in a manner and
sufficiently in advance that the entity's representatives have a fair opportunity to prepare for and to participate in the
hearing, whether in person or by writing. The notice should be in plain language and, when appropriate, contain basic information
about the applicable adjudicatory process. In all informal adjudications, the responsible OA or component of OST shall adhere
faithfully and consistently to the procedures established in any applicable procedural regulations.

§ 5.81 The hearing record. In formal hearings, the agency shall comply with the APA and shall include in the record of the hearing the testimony, exhibits,
papers, and requests that are filed by parties to the hearing, in addition to the ALJ's or hearing officer's decision or the
decision on appeal. For informal hearings, the record shall include the information that the agency considered “at the time
it reached the decision” and its contemporaneous findings. The administrative record does not include privileged documents,
such as attorney-client communications or deliberative or draft documents. Agencies are encouraged to make the record available
to all interested parties to the fullest extent allowed by law, consistent with appropriate protections for the handling of
confidential information.

§ 5.83 Contacts with the public. After the initiation of an enforcement proceeding, communications between persons outside the agency and agency decisional
personnel should occur on the record. Consistent with applicable regulations and procedures, if oral, written, or electronic
ex parte communications occur, they should be placed on the record as soon as practicable. Notice should be given to the parties
that such communications are being placed into the record. When performing departmental functions, all DOT employees should
properly identify themselves as employees of the Department, including the OA or component of OST in which they work; they
should properly show official identification if the contact is made in person; and they should clearly state the nature of
their business and the reasons for the contact. All contacts by DOT personnel with the public shall be professional, fair,
honest, direct, and consistent with all applicable ethical standards.

§ 5.85 Duty to disclose exculpatory evidence. It is the Department's policy that each responsible OA or component of OST will voluntarily follow in its civil enforcement
actions the principle articulated in Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83 (1963)) in which the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires disclosure
of exculpatory evidence “material to guilt or punishment” known to the government but unknown to the defendant in criminal
cases. Adopting the “Brady rule” and making affirmative disclosures of exculpatory evidence in all enforcement actions will
contribute to the Department's goal of open and fair investigations and administrative enforcement proceedings. This policy
requires the agency's adversarial personnel to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the agency's possession to the
representatives of the regulated entity whose conduct is the subject of the enforcement action. These affirmative disclosures
should include any material evidence known to the Department's adversarial personnel that may be favorable to the regulated
entity in the enforcement action—including evidence that tends to negate or diminish the party's responsibility for a violation
or that could be relied upon to reduce the potential fine or other penalties. The regulated entity need not request such favorable
information; it should be disclosed as a matter of course. Agency counsel should recommend appropriate remedies to DOT decision
makers where a Brady rule violation has occurred, using the factors identified by courts when

applying the Brady rule in the criminal context.

§ 5.87 Use of guidance documents in administrative enforcement cases. Guidance documents cannot create binding requirements that do not already exist by statute or regulation. Accordingly, the
Department may not use its enforcement authority to convert agency guidance documents into binding rules. Likewise, enforcement
attorneys may not use noncompliance with guidance documents as a basis for proving violations of applicable law. Guidance
documents can do no more, with respect to prohibition of conduct, than articulate the agency or Department's understanding
of how a statute or regulation applies to particular circumstances. The Department may cite a guidance document to convey
this understanding in an administrative enforcement action or adjudication only if it has notified the public of such document
in advance through publication in the
Federal Register
or on the Department's website. Additional procedures related to guidance documents are contained in subpart C of this part.

§ 5.89 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The OAs and the components of OST with enforcement authority are encouraged to use ADR to resolve enforcement cases where
appropriate. The Department's ADR policy describes a variety of problem-solving processes that can be used in lieu of litigation
or other adversarial proceedings to resolve disputes over compliance.

§ 5.91 Duty to adjudicate proceedings promptly. Agency attorneys should promptly initiate proceedings or prosecute matters referred to them. In addition, cases should not
be allowed to linger unduly after the adjudicatory process has begun. Attorneys should seek to settle matters where possible
or refer the case to a decision maker for proper disposition when settlement negotiations have reached an impasse. Absent
the showing of unusual or extenuating circumstances, or if necessitated for good cause, each OST component or OA with enforcement
authority shall apply limiting principles to the duration of investigations. On-site investigations should generally be limited
to 10 business days or less and enforcement staff shall make a decision on pursuing an administrative action within 30 days
of the completion of the inspection or investigation and commence an enforcement action as soon as possible thereafter—unless
otherwise required by statute.

§ 5.93 Termination of investigation. When the facts disclosed by an investigation indicate that further action is not warranted, the OST component or OA with enforcement
authority will close the investigation without prejudice to further investigation and will notify the person being investigated
of the decision. This notification requirement should only be applied where a subject of an investigation has previously been
made aware of the investigation, or other pre-enforcement activity. Nothing in this section precludes civil enforcement action
at a later time related to the findings of the investigation.

§ 5.95 Initiation of additional investigations. OST components and OAs should not initiate additional investigations of a party after commencing an enforcement action absent
a showing of good cause (e.g., new complaints, accidents, or incidents), except when the additional investigation is prompted by facts uncovered in the initial
investigation.

§ 5.97 Agency decisions. Agency counsel may be used in the conduct of informal hearings and to prepare initial recommended decisions for the agency
decision maker. The agency must notify the directly affected parties of its decision, and the decision must reasonably inform
the parties in a timely manner of the additional procedural rights available to them.

§ 5.99 Settlements. Settlement conferences may be handled by appropriate agency counsel without the involvement of the agency's decision maker.
Once a matter is settled by compromise, that agreement should be reviewed and accepted by an appropriate supervisor. The responsible
OA or component of OST should issue an order adopting the terms of the settlement agreement as the final agency decision,
where and as authorized by statute or regulation. No DOT settlement agreement, consent order, or consent decree should be
used to adopt or impose new regulatory obligations for entities that are not parties to the settlement. Unless required by
law, settlement agreements are not confidential and are subject to public disclosure.

§ 5.101 OGC approval required for certain settlement terms. Whenever a proposed settlement agreement, consent order, or consent decree would impose behavioral commitments or obligations
on a regulated entity that go beyond the requirements of relevant statutes and regulations, including the appointment of an
independent monitor or the imposition of novel, unprecedented, or extraordinary obligations, the responsible OA or OST component
should obtain the approval of OGC before finalizing the settlement agreement, consent order, or consent decree.

§ 5.103 Basis for civil penalties and disclosures thereof. No civil penalties will be sought in any DOT enforcement action except when and as supported by clear statutory authority
and sufficient findings of fact. Where applicable statutes vest the agency with discretion with regard to the amount or type
of penalty sought or imposed, the penalty should reflect due regard for fairness, the scale of the violation, the violator's
knowledge and intent, and any mitigating factors (such as whether the violator is a small business). The assessment of proposed
or final penalties in a DOT enforcement action shall be communicated in writing to the subject of the action, along with a
full explanation of the basis for the calculation of asserted penalties. In addition, the agency shall voluntarily share penalty
calculation worksheets, manuals, charts, or other appropriate materials that shed light on the way penalties are calculated
to ensure fairness in the process and to encourage a negotiated resolution where possible.

§ 5.105 Publication of decisions. The agency's decisions in informal adjudications are not required to be published under the APA. However, where the agency
intends to rely on its opinions in future cases, those opinions must generally be made available on agency websites or in
agency reading rooms (and publication on Westlaw, Lexis, or similar legal services is also highly recommended). The APA has
been read to require that opinions in formal adjudications must be made “available for public inspection and copying.” Agencies
are strongly encouraged to publish all formal decisions on Westlaw, Lexis, or similar legal services.

§ 5.107 Coordination with the Office of Inspector General on criminal matters. All Department employees must comply with the operative DOT Order(s) addressing referrals of potential criminal matters to
the Office of Inspector General (OIG), consistent with the respective roles of the OIG and DOT

OAs and components of OST in criminal investigations and the OIG's investigative procedures under the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended.

§ 5.109 Standard operating procedures. All legal offices that participate in or render advice in connection with enforcement actions should, to the extent practicable,
operate under standard operating procedures. Such offices include, but are not limited to, those that oversee investigatory
matters and serve as adversarial personnel in the agency's enforcement matters. These standard operating procedures, which
can be contained in manuals, can be used to outline step-by-step requirements for attorney actions in the investigative stage
and the prosecution stage; the role of an attorney as counselor, adjudicator, or litigator; the rulemaking process; and the
process for issuance of guidance documents, letters of interpretation, preemption decisions, legislative guidance, contract
administration, and a variety of other legal functions performed in the legal office. Each DOT OA and each OST component that
conducts administrative inspections shall operate under those procedures governing such inspections and shall adopt such administrative
inspection procedures if they do not exist. Those procedures shall be updated in a timely manner as needed.

§ 5.111 Cooperative information sharing. The Department, as appropriate and to the extent practicable and permitted by law, shall:

(a) Encourage voluntary self-reporting of regulatory violations by regulated parties in exchange for reduction or waivers
of civil penalties;

(b) Encourage voluntary information sharing by regulated parties; and

(c) Provide pre-enforcement rulings to regulated parties (formal and informal interpretations).

§ 5.113 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). The Department shall comply with the terms of SBREFA when conducting administrative inspections and adjudications, including
section 223 of SBREFA (reduction or waivers of civil penalties, where appropriate). The Department will also cooperate with
the Small Business Administration (SBA) when a small business files a comment or complaint related to DOT's inspection authority
and when requested to answer SBREFA compliance requests.

§ 5.115 Referral of matters for judicial enforcement. In considering whether to refer a matter for judicial enforcement by the Department of Justice, DOT attorneys should consult
the applicable procedures set forth by the General Counsel, including in the document entitled “Partnering for Excellence:
Coordination of Legal Work Within the U.S. Department of Transportation,” and any update or supplement to such document issued
hereafter by the General Counsel. The specific procedures for initiating an affirmative litigation request are currently found
in the coordination document at section 11.B.l., “Affirmative Litigation Requests to the Department of Justice.” In most instances,
requests to commence affirmative litigation must be reviewed by OGC, with such reviews coordinated through the Office of Litigation
and Enforcement.

§ 5.117 Publicly available decisional quality and efficiency metrics. Each OST component or OA should annually identify, collect, and make publicly available decisional quality and efficiency
metrics regarding adjudication under administrative, judicial, and split enforcement models (of adjudication), to include, e.g., the number of matters that have been pending with the agency over relevant time periods, the number of matters disposed by
the agency annually, and data on the types of matters before and disposed of by the agency. This data shall be made available
and prominently published on the OST component or OA's website within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year.

§ 5.119 Enforcement rights. Regulated parties that are the subject of a DOT enforcement action may, during the course of the enforcement action, petition
the DOT General Counsel for a determination that responsible DOT personnel violated one or more provisions of this subpart
with respect to the enforcement action. If the General Counsel chooses to review the petition and determines that DOT personnel
did not follow the provisions of this subpart, the General Counsel may elect to direct the relevant agency decisionmaker to
award the following type of relief, as warranted by the circumstances and consistent with law:

(a) Removal of the enforcement team from the particular matter;

(b) Elimination of certain issues or the exclusion of certain evidence or the directing of certain factual findings in the
course of the enforcement action; and

(c) Restarting the enforcement action again from the beginning or recommencing the action from an earlier point in the proceeding.

PART 7—PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

Regulatory Text 10. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 322; E.O. 12600; E.O. 13392.

1. Amend § 7.12 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

§ 7.12 What records are available in reading rooms, and how are they accessed?

(a) * * *

(2) Statements of policy and interpretations, including guidance documents as defined in 49 CFR 5.25(c), that have been adopted
by DOT;

---

PART 106—RULEMAKING PROCEDURES

Regulatory Text 12. The authority citation for part 106 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 5101-5128; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.

1. Amend § 106.40 by revising the introductory text, the first sentence of paragraph (c), and paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:

§ 106.40 Direct final rule.

A direct final rule makes regulatory changes and states that the regulatory changes will take effect on a specified date unless
PHMSA receives an adverse comment within the comment period—generally 60 days after the direct final rule is published in
the
Federal Register
.

---

(c) * * * We will publish a confirmation document in the
Federal Register
, generally within 15 days after the comment period closes, if we have not received an adverse comment. * * *

(d) * * *

(1) If we receive an adverse comment, we will either publish a document withdrawing the direct final rule before it becomes
effective and may issue an NPRM or proceed by any other means permitted under the Administrative Procedure Act, consistent
with procedures at 49 CFR 5.13(l).

---

PART 389—RULEMAKING PROCEDURES—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS

Regulatory Text 14. The authority citation for part 389 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 113, 501 et seq., subchapters I and III of chapter 311, chapter 313, and 31502; sec. 5204 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1536; 42 U.S.C.
4917; and 49 CFR 1.87.

1. Amend § 389.39 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:

§ 389.39 Direct final rulemaking procedures.

---

(d) * * *

(1) If FMCSA receives an adverse comment within the comment period, it will either publish a document withdrawing the direct
final rule before it becomes effective and may issue an NPRM or proceed by any other means permitted under the Administrative
Procedure Act, consistent with procedures at 49 CFR 5.13(l).

---

PART 553—RULEMAKING PROCEDURES

Regulatory Text 16. The authority citation for part 553 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 322, 30103, 30122, 30124, 30125, 30127, 30146, 30162, 32303, 32502, 32504, 32505, 32705, 32901, 32902, 33102, 33103,
and 33107; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

1. Amend § 553.14 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 553.14 Direct final rulemaking.

---

(d) If NHTSA receives any written adverse comment within the specified time after publication of the direct final rule in
the
Federal Register
, the agency will either publish a document withdrawing the direct final rule before it becomes effective and may issue an
NPRM or proceed by any other means permitted under the Administrative Procedure Act, consistent with procedures at 49 CFR
5.13(l).

---

PART 601—ORGANIZATION, FUNCTIONS, AND PROCEDURES

Regulatory Text 18. The authority citation for part 601 is revised to read as follows:

Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552; 49 U.S.C. 5334; 49 CFR 1.91.

§§ 601.28 and 601.31 [Removed and Reserved] Regulatory Text 19. Remove and reserve §§ 601.28 and 601.31.

1. Amend § 601.32 by revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:

§ 601.32 Petitions for rulemaking or exemptions.

---

(b) * * *

(6) In the case of a petition for exemption, except in cases in which good cause is shown, the petition must be submitted
at least 60 days before the requested effective date of the exemption.

1. Amend § 601.33 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 601.33 Processing of petitions.

---

(d) Notification. Whenever the Administrator determines that a petition should be granted or denied, and after consultation with the Office
of Regulation and Legislation in the case of denial, the office concerned and the Office of Chief Counsel prepare a notice
of that grant or denial for issuance to the petitioner, and the Administrator issues it to the petitioner.

1. Amend § 601.36 by revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to read as follows:

§ 601.36 Procedures for direct final rulemaking.

---

(b) The
Federal Register
document will state that any adverse comment must be received in writing by FTA within the specified time after the date of
publication and that, if no written adverse comment is received, the rule will become effective a specified number of days
after the date of publication.

(c) If no written adverse comment is received by FTA within the specified time of publication in the
Federal Register
, FTA will publish a notice in the
Federal Register
indicating that no adverse comment was received and confirming that the rule will become effective on the date that was indicated
in the direct final rule.

(d) If FTA receives any written adverse comment within the specified time of publication in the
Federal Register
, FTA will either publish a document withdrawing the direct final rule before it becomes effective and may issue an NPRM,
or proceed by any other means permitted under the Administrative Procedure Act, consistent with procedures at 49 CFR 5.13(l).

---

PART 605—SCHOOL BUS OPERATIONS

Regulatory Text 23. The authority citation for part 605 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 5323(f); 49 U.S.C. 5334; and 49 CFR 1.91.

1. Revise § 605.31 to read as follows:

§ 605.31 Notification to the respondent.

On receipt of any complaint under § 605.30, or on the Administrator's own motion if at any time he or she shall have reason
to believe that a violation may have occurred, the Administrator will provide written notification to the recipient (“Respondent”)
that a violation has probably occurred. The Administrator will inform the respondent of the conduct which constitutes a probable
violation of the agreement in a manner consistent with the fair notice requirements of 49 CFR 5.69.

1. Revise § 605.32 to read as follows:

§ 605.32 Accumulation of evidentiary material.

The Administrator will allow the respondent not more than 30 days to show cause, by submission of evidence, why no violation
occurred. A like period shall be allowed to the complainant, if any, during which the complainant may submit evidence to rebut
the evidence offered by the respondent. The Administrator may undertake such further investigation, as deemed necessary, including
the holding of an evidentiary hearing or hearings in a manner consistent with the record requirements of 49 CFR 5.81.

[FR Doc. 2026-08144 Filed 4-24-26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

Footnotes

(1) Executive Order 14148, “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” 90 FR 8237 (January 28, 2025).

(2) See U.S. Department of Transportation, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures,”
90 FR 20956 (May 16, 2025).

(3) See Clark, Jeffrey B., Acting Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Memorandum M-25-20 for Regulatory Policy
Officers at Executive Departments and Agencies and Management and Executive Directors of Certain Agencies and Commissions,
“Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, Titled `Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,' ” available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/M-25-20-Guidance-Implementing-Section-3-of-Executive-Order-14192-Titled-Unleashing-Prosperity-Through-Deregulation.pdf (March 26, 2025).

(4) The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, published in the fall and spring at RegInfo.gov, provides uniform reporting of data on regulatory and deregulatory activities under development through the Federal Government,
including approximately 60 departments, agencies, and commissions. The Department hosts a docket (DOT-OST-1999-5129) for public
comments on any aspects of the Department's regulatory agenda.

(5) See U.S. Department of Transportation, “Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis,” available at https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis (April 28, 2025).

(6) This aspect of the rule amends the direct final rule procedures for the following operating administrations: Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

(7) 603 U.S. 109 (2024).

(8) See Axalta Coating Systems v. FAA, 144 F.4th 167 (3d Cir. 2025).

(1) See Appendix A to “Memorandum on the Review and Clearance of Guidance Documents,” available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2025-03/Review%20and%20Clearance%20of%20Guidance%20Documents.Cote%20Memo.Signed.03-11-2025.pdf.

(1) See Appendix A to “Memorandum on the Review and Clearance of Guidance Documents,” available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2025-03/Review%20and%20Clearance%20of%20Guidance%20Documents.Cote%20Memo.Signed.03-11-2025.pdf.

Download File

Download