Public Comments on Proposed Federal Rules
Here's a look at public comments on proposed Federal Register rules
Featured Stories
MTA Calls for Regulatory Reforms to Speed Infrastructure Projects
By Jaymar B. Talang
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has submitted a comprehensive set of recommendations to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to streamline regulations and accelerate infrastructure projects. In a letter dated May 5, 2025, to Acting General Counsel Gregory D. Cote, the MTA outlined changes to reduce delays, cut costs, and boost economic benefits while maintaining safety and compliance. The recommendations, submitted under Docket Number DOT-OST-2025-0026, address issues ranging from federal grant processes to historic preservation rules
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has submitted a comprehensive set of recommendations to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to streamline regulations and accelerate infrastructure projects. In a letter dated May 5, 2025, to Acting General Counsel Gregory D. Cote, the MTA outlined changes to reduce delays, cut costs, and boost economic benefits while maintaining safety and compliance. The recommendations, submitted under Docket Number DOT-OST-2025-0026, address issues ranging from federal grant processes to historic preservation rulesand real estate acquisition policies.
The MTA emphasized that over 70% of its Capital Program funds flow to the private sector, and regulatory reforms could expedite job creation. "Clear guidance regarding pre-award authority for costs incurred prior to award of discretionary grants will speed up the disbursement of funds to the economy and generate jobs and investment more quickly," wrote Naomi Renek, Senior Advisor for Federal Policy at the MTA. This change would allow grantees to start projects using local funds with confidence in federal reimbursement.
Among the key proposals, the MTA urged USDOT to clarify pre-award authority rules to start projects earlier, particularly by modifying the Common Grant rule to allow pre-award authority at the start of the federal fiscal year. The MTA also called for greater flexibility in using funds for joint benefit projects, suggesting amendments to allow Capital Investment Grant (CIG) and Amtrak funds to cover any project element once a cost-sharing agreement is in place.
The MTA highlighted delays caused by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 process, which can take up to six months and stall contract awards. To address this, the MTA recommended expanding exemptions under the 2018 Program Comment to include assets like substations and bus depots outside rail rights-of-way. "Expanding the exemptions from Section 106 review and the use of Program Comments will accelerate the process, allowing USDOT and grantee staff to use their limited resources more efficiently," Renek noted.
Additionally, the MTA proposed streamlining the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by accepting state environmental reviews that meet NEPA standards and eliminating extensive documentation for Categorical Exclusions, which can delay projects by three to six months. The MTA also suggested reducing the frequency of real estate reporting to quarterly and expanding authority to acquire land before NEPA completion to prevent cost increases.
Other recommendations include harmonizing guidance for Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and CIG funding, revising Commercial Driver's License requirements for transit bus operators, and withdrawing a proposed FTA policy that limits the use of on-demand providers like Uber for paratransit services. The MTA also advocated for a "Bridge to Buy America" initiative to boost domestic manufacturing by allowing foreign builders to bid on contracts if they commit to U.S.-based production.
These reforms aim to cut red tape, speed up project delivery, and maximize economic impact. The MTA expressed eagerness to collaborate with USDOT to implement these changes, ensuring faster, more efficient infrastructure development across the U.S. transportation system.
* * *
Read full text of the public communication here: https://downloads.regulations.gov/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0861/attachment_1.pdf
View Regulations.gov posting on May 6, 2025, and docket information here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0861
Minneapolis Airports Commission Urges Federal Government to Streamline Regulations
By Jaymar B. Talang
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), Minnesota, which owns and operates the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and six general aviation airports in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, has requested the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and streamline approval processes. In a letter to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, the MAC outlined nine specific areas where it believes reforms could accelerate infrastructure projects, promote efficiency, and lower costs without compromising safety.
Brian D. Ryks, the Executive
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), Minnesota, which owns and operates the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and six general aviation airports in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, has requested the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and streamline approval processes. In a letter to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, the MAC outlined nine specific areas where it believes reforms could accelerate infrastructure projects, promote efficiency, and lower costs without compromising safety.
Brian D. Ryks, the ExecutiveDirector and CEO of the Minneapolis-based MAC, emphasized the commission's support for the administration's deregulatory efforts while underscoring the importance of maintaining safety standards. "At MAC, we take pride in operating the airports under our jurisdiction in an efficient, fiscally responsible, safe, and secure manner," Ryks stated in the letter. "Thus, we have every incentive to maintain and develop facilities and property in a way that takes into careful consideration federal, state, and local requirements and minimizes to the greatest extent possible the impact on communities, the environment, and stakeholders who operate at our facilities."
The MAC's recommendations center on reducing what it perceives as federal overreach, particularly by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). One key area of concern is the FAA's involvement in airport development projects beyond core safety and efficiency concerns. The letter argues that the FAA has "ventured too far into regulating airport decision-making on capital project development," citing requirements for project justifications for entitlement funds, regulation of non-aeronautical development, and the need for FAA approval of forecasted aviation demand.
Ryks specifically criticized the FAA's "planning complete" review process as "an unnecessary, burdensome, and unjustified" additional layer of scrutiny lacking statutory or regulatory foundation. He explained that complying with these new requests forces planning staff to "create new documentation without any of the programmatic guidance one would expect from a properly constituted agency review program."
The MAC also called for streamlining project review and approval processes, noting that excessive delays drive up project costs. The letter urged the DOT and FAA to establish enforceable deadlines for reviews and to ensure that the level of detail required in submissions aligns with the project's phase. Furthermore, the MAC suggested that the FAA should be more willing to grant deviations from its own design and construction standards when safety is not compromised.
Environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) were another area highlighted for reform. The MAC advocated for simplifying and streamlining NEPA reviews, strictly enforcing statutory deadlines, and providing regulatory certainty to reduce subjectivity and delays. Ryks pointed out a counterproductive consequence of strict timelines, explaining, "Sometimes, to ensure that the agency can keep to the required timeline, FAA will require pre-reviews of draft documentation... airport sponsors are not allowed to submit for review until all concerns identified in the pre-review have been addressed. In sum... the full review (which includes a lengthy pre-review) takes just as long as it did before timelines were strictly enforced."
Other recommendations included a re-focus of land use guidance following the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, a review of recent updates to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) programs, clarification of the AIP Handbook's "good title" requirement, and measures to protect airport safety data collected through Safety Management Systems (SMS) from state freedom of information laws. The MAC also urged the FAA to set time limits for resolving Part 13 and Part 16 complaints and to effectively delegate authority to local Airports Division Offices (ADOs).
In closing, Ryks acknowledged the administration's efforts toward government efficiency but stressed that adequate staffing at the FAA is crucial for timely execution of its duties. "While some efficiency gains will be realized by narrowing FAA's activities to only those for which it has explicit statutory authority, FAA must not reduce staffing to levels that slow the pace of these remaining activities to the detriment of airport sponsors," he concluded. The Metropolitan Airports Commission expressed its eagerness to collaborate with the DOT to implement these proposed reforms.
* * *
Read full text of the public communication here: https://downloads.regulations.gov/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0761/attachment_1.pdf
View Regulations.gov posting on May 5, 2025, and docket information here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0761
Disability Advocates Urge Stronger Federal Oversight for Accessible Air Travel
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- A coalition of veterans service organizations, disability advocates, and aviation stakeholders has called on the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to strengthen regulations and enforcement to ensure safe and dignified air travel for passengers with disabilities. In a letter to Acting General Counsel Gregory D. Cote, the groups emphasized the need for the DOT to uphold its statutory obligations under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and related federal laws.
The letter, submitted in response to a DOT request for information, highlights persistent barriers faced by disabled
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- A coalition of veterans service organizations, disability advocates, and aviation stakeholders has called on the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to strengthen regulations and enforcement to ensure safe and dignified air travel for passengers with disabilities. In a letter to Acting General Counsel Gregory D. Cote, the groups emphasized the need for the DOT to uphold its statutory obligations under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and related federal laws.
The letter, submitted in response to a DOT request for information, highlights persistent barriers faced by disabledtravelers, including issues with accessible lavatories, mishandled wheelchairs, and lack of effective communication for deaf and hard-of-hearing passengers. The advocates argue that despite decades of the ACAA, significant improvements have often only occurred when mandated by law.
The groups cited a recent incident involving a paralyzed veteran who was forced to "transfer himself to the floor of the aircraft and squeeze and push himself through the aisle" to reach his wheelchair after waiting for an aisle chair upon arrival. This incident, they assert, underscores the "lack of attention air carriers place on ensuring the safety and dignity of passengers with disabilities."
Drawing on the findings of a survey conducted for the ACAA's 35th anniversary, the letter notes that over half of respondents require aisle chairs for boarding and deplaning, with many reporting unsafe conditions and injuries during the process. One survey participant's statement, "the attendants rarely know how to transfer or to strap me in," was directly quoted to illustrate the challenges faced by travelers.
The coalition stressed that stronger regulations and enforcement are crucial to address these ongoing issues. They urged the DOT to consider the experiences of passengers who have been injured, left on planes, had their wheelchairs damaged, or been unable to receive vital communications. "Passengers with disabilities and their families rely on regulations to direct the industry's accessibility advancements," the letter concludes, emphasizing that "history, as well as recent events, demonstrates that regulations and regulatory enforcement are necessary to ensure that airlines provide safe, reliable, and accessible air travel for passengers with disabilities."
* * *
The letter was signed by Access Ready Inc.; All Wheels Up; Blinded Veterans Association (BVA); Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation; Cure SMA; Deaf Equality; Disability Rights California; Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; Easterseals; Epilepsy Foundation of America; Muscular Dystrophy Association; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Service Employees International Union; TDIforAccess; United Spinal Association.
Read full text of the public communication here: https://downloads.regulations.gov/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0824/attachment_1.pdf
View Regulations.gov posting on May 6, 2025, and docket information here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0824
Aviation Group Urges DOT to Streamline Regulations
By Jaymar B. Talang
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) is calling on the Department of Transportation (DOT) to reduce regulatory burdens on the aviation industry, particularly for small businesses. In a formal response to the DOT's request for information on regulatory reform, NATA emphasized the need for efficiency and relevance in current regulations.
NATA, which represents nearly 3,700 aviation businesses, including on-demand air charter carriers, maintenance facilities, and flight training providers, argues that the current regulatory landscape is "quite onerous," especially
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) is calling on the Department of Transportation (DOT) to reduce regulatory burdens on the aviation industry, particularly for small businesses. In a formal response to the DOT's request for information on regulatory reform, NATA emphasized the need for efficiency and relevance in current regulations.
NATA, which represents nearly 3,700 aviation businesses, including on-demand air charter carriers, maintenance facilities, and flight training providers, argues that the current regulatory landscape is "quite onerous," especiallyfor its many members who employ fewer than 40 people.
The association acknowledged that many existing regulations are crucial for safety and operational efficiency. However, it urged the DOT and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure that regulatory reviews do not simply replace outdated rules with new, burdensome ones. "Instead, the identification of a rule as redundant, unproductive, or unnecessary should warrant its removal or revision," NATA stated in its letter.
NATA also highlighted the lack of accurate data on the impact of regulations on small aviation businesses. The association believes this data gap hinders the creation of effective and fair regulations. To address this, NATA recommends that the DOT and FAA "engage in meaningful and on-going efforts" to collect such data for future rulemaking.
The letter further emphasizes the importance of cost-benefit analyses in the rulemaking process. NATA argues that a thorough assessment of a regulation's cost compared to its benefits provides a better understanding of its economic impact on both aviation stakeholders and the public. The association also suggests that the DOT require its rulemaking actions, and those of the FAA, to evaluate the aggregate economic impact of current regulations when considering new rules.
NATA proposes several specific recommendations for regulatory action. One key suggestion is to review regulations that are frequently violated. The association suggests that the DOT and FAA "review enforcement actions and reports collected through voluntary reporting systems...to identify regulations frequently, but often inadvertently, violated." NATA believes this review could lead to modifications, revised guidance, or enhanced educational efforts to reduce violations. As an example, the letter cites preemployment drug and alcohol testing regulations (49 CFR part 40), noting the "discrepancy" between frequent violations and the industry's "consistently low rates of positive test results."
Another recommendation involves assessing regulations with frequently approved waivers or exemptions. NATA argues that such regulations may no longer serve a necessary safety purpose. "Approved waivers or exemptions generally illustrate that an industry member can negate the safety risk to the satisfaction of the FAA," the letter states.
NATA also urges the DOT and FAA to re-examine recommendations from the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) from 2017, many of which were never implemented, and to re-consider previously filed rulemaking and exemption petitions that were denied. The association believes these actions could identify regulations ripe for modification or removal.
Finally, NATA addresses the issue of policy and guidance materials, such as Advisory Circulars (ACs) and inspector policy guidance, which are often treated as mandatory by operators. The association criticizes the practice of imposing de-facto regulations without adhering to the full rulemaking process. NATA states, "Many burdens are placed on aircraft operators via the FAA Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) and on fractional program operations via Management Specifications (MSpecs)...[which] are rarely, if ever, subject to notice and comment nor an analysis of cost impacts."
NATA concludes its letter by reiterating its support for the DOT and FAA's initiative to reduce unnecessary and outdated regulations and expresses its commitment to collaborating with the agencies to achieve greater efficiency, safety, and professionalism in aviation.
* * *
Read full text of the public communication here: https://downloads.regulations.gov/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0823/attachment_1.pdf
View Regulations.gov posting on May 6, 2025, and docket information here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0823
Advocacy Group Urges DOT to Repeal Discriminatory Regulations
By Jaymar B. Talang
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), Roswell, Georgia, a nonprofit dedicated to defending constitutional liberties, has called on the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to eliminate two programs it deems unconstitutional: the Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) and the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) programs. In a detailed letter submitted on May 5, 2025, to DOT Secretary Sean Duffy, SLF argues these regulations promote race and sex-based discrimination, violating recent Supreme Court rulings and executive orders aimed at curbing
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), Roswell, Georgia, a nonprofit dedicated to defending constitutional liberties, has called on the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to eliminate two programs it deems unconstitutional: the Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) and the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) programs. In a detailed letter submitted on May 5, 2025, to DOT Secretary Sean Duffy, SLF argues these regulations promote race and sex-based discrimination, violating recent Supreme Court rulings and executive orders aimed at curbingunlawful governance.
SLF's letter responds to a DOT request for information on regulations to repeal under Executive Orders 14219 and 14192, issued in early 2025 to advance deregulation and lawful governance. Additionally, it cites a Presidential Memorandum from April 9, 2025, directing agencies to review regulations for legality, and Executive Order 14281, which seeks to eliminate disparate impact theory and restore meritocracy. "The Department of Transportation maintains two programs that are not lawful under [the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard] and were unconstitutional long before that decision," SLF wrote, targeting the ACDBE (49 C.F.R. Sec.Sec. 23 et seq.) and DBE (49 C.F.R. Sec.Sec. 26 et seq.) programs.
These programs, SLF contends, mandate race and sex preferences by favoring "socially and economically disadvantaged" groups, defined to include specific racial minorities and women. The ACDBE program, for instance, requires airports receiving federal funds to ensure at least 10% of businesses are owned by such individuals, while the DBE program applies similar criteria to highway and transit funding. "The term 'socially disadvantaged' is a euphemism for race and sex preferences," SLF stated, arguing that these policies undermine equal protection under the law.
SLF's critique hinges on the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), which rejected racial preferences in college admissions. The ruling emphasized that race-based policies must not use race as a "negative" or stereotype and must have a "logical end point." SLF argues that both DOT programs fail these tests, as they presume certain races and women are disadvantaged and lack a clear termination date. "These programs have no sunset provision and appear designed to exist in perpetuity," the letter notes, citing their reliance on statistical disparities to justify preferences.
The foundation also challenges the programs' compliance with strict scrutiny, a legal standard requiring a compelling government interest and narrow tailoring. SLF asserts that the DOT's reliance on general assertions of past discrimination, rather than specific evidence of intentional bias, renders the programs unconstitutional. "The Constitution requires a showing of discrimination, not disparities," the letter states, emphasizing that the programs' use of "crude racial categories" is neither justified nor narrowly tailored.
SLF urges the DOT to prioritize these regulations for rescission, aligning with the administration's commitment to ending state-sanctioned discrimination. "For far too long DOT has forced its funding recipients to... [sort] Americans into ugly racial boxes,"
* * *
Read full text of the public communication here: https://downloads.regulations.gov/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0771/attachment_1.pdf
View Regulations.gov posting on May 5, 2025, and docket information here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0771
