DOT Reports on Rulemakings' Status
DOT's August 2017 Significant Rulemaking Report lists the status of dozens of pending rulemakings, including some the agency has halted and many others it has delayed during the Trump administration's initial months.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has resumed its monthly public Significant Rulemaking Report, saying it demonstrates a commitment to transparency in DOT’s rulemaking process. The new report for August 2017 is available here.
It lists the status of dozens of pending rulemakings, including some the agency has halted and many others it has delayed during the Trump administration's initial months.
For example, the Federal Highway Administration's proposal to update its National Bridge Inspection Standards to incorporate changes directed by the MAP-21 federal infrastructure funding law is now projected to be published in January 2018, and the Federal Railroad Administration's final rule that would have required railroads to provide emergency escape breathing apparatus PPE for crew members on freight trains carrying poison inhalation hazmats, and to train them to use the PPE properly, is delayed -- the new report says FRA "cannot identify an economical means of compliance" and so it issued a guidance document that railroads will use to develop effective emergency escape breathing apparatus programs. The explanation for this delay in the document is "Additional coordination needed for regulatory evaluation; Other, higher priorities."
According to DOT, publication of the monthly reports paused temporarily because of the change in administrations and subsequent evaluations in DOT rulemaking priorities in accordance with Executive Orders 13771, on reducing federal regulations, and 13777, which directed each agency to create a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate existing regulations and recommend to the agency's head repeal, replacement, or modification, emphasizing that the task forces should attempt to identify regulations that eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation; are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; impose costs that exceed benefits; or create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies.