Regulatory Compliance Timeline Tightens: Major Rules Face Challenging Path to Implementation

We have now officially entered the period when the Biden administration is up against the clock if it wishes to codify regulatory changes and get them on the books before President-elect Trump assumes office on January 20, 2025. President-elect Trump is expected to immediately freeze any final rule that has not yet taken effect by Inauguration Day, leaving little time for the Biden administration to act.

In this post, we explore how this regulatory landscape will likely play out in the coming weeks in an effort to plan for which rules are likely to stick around and which will likely be revisited by the new administration.

With few exceptions, federal law requires the effective date of final rules to be delayed by at least 30 days after publication; for major or significant rules, the delay is at least 60 days[1]. By "publish," we mean officially published in the Federal Register; a rule is not official while still under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), filed for public inspection, or at any other pre-publication stage.

As the clock ticks down, agencies may attempt to bypass these standard timeframes by expediting effective dates. This requires a “good cause” exception — such as a claim that it is necessary for national security, public health, or safety — but using this route can invite legal challenges. Predicting which agencies may try this approach or for which rules is speculative, so we focus on how the standard process is likely to play out to allow for rational planning in these final weeks.

Below are key timelines and scenarios to consider under the assumption that rules will follow the standard process envisioned by law without being expedited.

Key Assumptions and Timelines

1. Final Date for Major or Significant Rules

   • Deadline: Monday, November 18, 2024

   • Major or significant rules published on or before this date will take effect before Inauguration Day and escape President-elect Trump’s regulatory freeze. Reversing these rules would likely require formal rulemaking, subject to a public comment period, or Congressional disapproval via the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which we discuss below.

   
   

2. Final Date for Standard Rules with a 30-Day Delay

   • Deadline: Wednesday, December 18, 2024

   • Standard rules published by this date will also take effect before Inauguration Day and similarly avoid the freeze. Reversing these rules would require formal rulemaking or Congressional disapproval under the CRA.

   
   

3. Rules Published After These Deadlines

   • Rules published after these dates will not take effect before January 20, 2025, and are highly likely to be paused or withdrawn by the incoming administration. Such rules may be subject to:

     • Modification or rewriting, which could take weeks or months.

     • Republication as originally written.

     • Withdrawal, with or without public explanation.

   
   

4. Rules Still Pending OMB Approval on Inauguration Day

   • Any rule awaiting OMB approval as of January 20, 2025, will likely be withdrawn and reconsidered, creating uncertainty for several weeks or months as the Trump administration reviews its options.

Rules Pending Approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

As of November 18, 2024, there are 154 regulatory actions pending OMB approval[2]. Of these, 82 are final rules and 72 are proposed rules. Notably, 26 are significant final rules, meaning they should be subject to the 60-day delay in effective date required by law. There are also several rules previously approved by OMB in recent weeks which have not yet been published. Unless the Biden administration chooses to expedite these rules using a “good cause” exception to standard timeframes, they have no realistic chance of taking effect before Inauguration Day.

These significant rules cover critical policy priorities, including energy conservation, environmental standards, public health and safety, student debt relief, and labor-related issues. Whether the administration attempts to expedite these rules to cement its regulatory legacy remains to be seen, but their importance underscores the challenges and high stakes of this final stretch before January 20, 2025.

The CRA

The CRA provides a powerful tool for Congress to disapprove of rules finalized in the last 60 legislative days. The exact cutoff date will be determined by Congress in January 2025, but it is estimated to include final rules published on or after approximately August 1, 2024[3].

Disapproval under the CRA only requires a simple majority in both chambers of Congress and the president's signature. Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress, so this rarely used option is more viable than ever this year. President-elect Trump used the CRA in 2017 to repeal nearly 20 Obama-era rules.

Importantly, CRA disapproval removes the rule immediately and as though it never took effect. It also prevents future administrations from issuing a similar rule unless Congress explicitly authorizes it.

Post-Chevron Era in the Courts

One critical new consideration this time around is the Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision eliminating Chevron deference, which had long required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Post-Chevron, agencies face heightened judicial scrutiny: courts will independently evaluate whether an agency's rule aligns with the statutory framework, rather than deferring to the agency’s expertise.

For the Biden administration, this means hastily written rules issued to beat the clock could be especially vulnerable. Agencies must ensure their rules are thoughtfully crafted, backed by thorough records, and procedurally sound. Gaps in justification or statutory authority, which might previously have been overlooked under Chevron, will now be magnified, making rules more susceptible to judicial invalidation. This raises the stakes for finalizing rules in these final weeks.

Bottom Line

The ease with which President-elect Trump and his team can undo a particular rule issued under the Biden administration depends on the following:

1. Rules already codified and effective before Inauguration Day generally require a formal new proposed rule and comment period. One exception: Congress can pass a resolution of disapproval on final rules adopted since approximately August 1, 2024, and wipe out the rule immediately upon being signed into law.

   
   

2. Rules published but not yet effective as of Inauguration Day can be paused for further review and ultimately be allowed to take effect as originally published, modified with a new proposed rule, or withdrawn.

   
   

3. Rules which have not yet been published can simply be paused or withdrawn, unless required by law or a court order.

Practical Implications for Stakeholders

As Inauguration Day approaches, businesses and stakeholders should keep the following in mind:

• Monitor Effective Dates: Pay close attention to effective dates on rules published between now and Inauguration Day to anticipate their likely treatment by the new administration.

  
  

• Participate in Open Comment Periods: For proposed rules still open for comment, direct your input toward the priorities of the incoming administration, as it will ultimately decide whether and how to finalize these rules.

  
  

• Expect Delays: Be prepared for pauses in implementation as the Trump administration reviews and reconsiders pending and recently finalized rules. There may be extended periods of time with little to no new information on the fate of a particular rule.

  
  

• Ensure Compliance: Final rules that take effect before Inauguration Day remain binding law unless formally rescinded or modified. Continue compliance unless and until the issuing agency provides new guidance.

Let Iota Intel Help You Navigate the Transition

The next several weeks represent a critical period for businesses, industries, and stakeholders impacted by federal regulations. The stakes are high, with significant uncertainty surrounding which rules will survive, be modified, or face repeal. Navigating this regulatory landscape requires a strategic approach, whether you’re preparing for compliance, drafting comment letters, or anticipating changes under the new administration.

At Iota Intel, we specialize in helping stakeholders understand and respond to shifting regulatory requirements. From crafting thoughtful, impactful comment letters to tracking developments and providing expert guidance, our team is here to support you through this transition. Don’t leave your compliance or advocacy strategy to chance — reach out to us today to ensure you’re ready for what’s next.

Now more than ever you have a great opportunity to shape the future regulatory compliance landscape, and Iota Intel is here to help you engage in this process.

Conclusion

As the Biden administration races to finalize its regulatory priorities and President-elect Trump prepares to reshape the federal regulatory agenda, the landscape for stakeholders is rapidly evolving. Whether you're seeking to influence new rules, prepare for compliance, or mitigate risks, now is the time to act. The rules issued in the coming weeks will shape the policy landscape for years to come—make sure your voice is heard, and your business is ready.

Endnotes

[1] A “Major rule” generally is expected to result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. 5 USC § 804(2) - from U.S. Government Accountability Office. Note, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently updated its own definition of “significant” to rules with a $200 million impact on the economy.

[2] Executive Order Submissions Under Review, as of November 18, 2024.

[3] The Congressional Review Act: The Lookback Mechanism and Presidential Transitions, Page 2.

The End of Chevron Deference: A New Chapter in Public Participation

Iota Intel Analysis

November 1, 2024

A Shift in Power – The Way It Was Meant to Be

The U.S. Constitution establishes a separation of powers: Congress makes the laws, the executive branch implements and enforces them, and the judiciary interprets them. Yet, these roles often blur, raising important questions:

1. What happens when statutes are silent or vague on broad, impactful matters?

   
   

2. Who decides what Congress intended if the law could not foresee modern challenges?

   
   

3. How do we ensure agencies implement the law without overstepping into making it?

   
   

4. How can we guarantee a fair and transparent regulatory process?

For forty years, the Chevron doctrine empowered agencies to interpret vague laws they enforced, as courts deferred to agency expertise on ambiguous statutes. This deference created a regulatory framework where agencies often had the final word on a law’s meaning, allowing them to fill gaps Congress left open. Supporters of Chevron argue it enabled responsive, adaptive governance, essential in fields like technology, healthcare, and environmental protection. For instance, Chevron allowed the FCC to regulate emerging technologies like broadband, while the EPA could address greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, even though Congress had not anticipated climate change when drafting the law. This flexibility lets agencies bridge the gaps left by legislative ambiguity, often applying technical knowledge that courts or Congress lacked.

However, critics argue that Chevron deference led to unchecked agency power. Opponents further contend that agencies may lack a complete understanding of the practical challenges that regulated parties and the public face in implementing complex regulations, often resulting in rules that are difficult or costly to follow. By deferring to agencies, courts allowed unelected officials to craft rules with binding authority, sometimes in ways Congress may not have fully intended. This overreach, they claim, undermines the constitutional principle that only Congress should make laws, eroding accountability and public trust. By enabling agencies – rather than Congress or the courts – to define the meaning of laws, Chevron created a regulatory environment where broad social and economic impacts were sometimes shaped outside the legislative process.

A New Era Begins

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo. This landmark decision resets the balance of power, reinforcing the constitutional roles of each branch. While it does not strip agencies of their enforcement and administrative authority and does not apply to previously settled regulatory activity, it does raise the bar for judicial review of future regulations. Agencies must now ensure they engage in a thorough, transparent process to justify interpretations of ambiguous statutes, knowing courts will no longer automatically defer to their expertise.

This shift could benefit the public and regulated parties by encouraging a more transparent rulemaking process. With courts acting as a more active check, the public has an expanded opportunity to shape agency actions through meaningful engagement in the comment submission process. While the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) already mandates public notice and comment periods, a post-Chevron world makes thoughtful, data-backed comments even more influential. Agencies must now carefully consider and address public input and concerns, as they will become part of the official record which can and will be scrutinized in court if a rule is challenged.

The New Dynamic

This shift creates a more balanced dialogue between regulators and the public. Agencies must now:

• Demonstrate statutory authority for new rules,

• Address substantive public comments thoroughly,

• Justify interpretations without relying on automatic deference, and

• Consider practical implementation challenges if documented in public comments.

For regulated parties and the public, this means:

• Their public comments may have greater weight in shaping regulations,

• There is a stronger position to challenge questionable interpretations in court,

• Agencies must engage in transparent decision-making when publishing binding requirements.

  
  

The Way Forward: A Practical Approach

Success in this new regulatory environment requires a proactive approach during rulemaking. Regulated parties of all sizes, not just large corporations and industry trade associations, can – and should – use this opportunity to make their voices heard by submitting well-constructed comments that reflect real-world impacts. This means:

1. Get Engaged

   • Monitor proposed rules and let your voice be heard! Consider submitting a public comment letter (in most cases, agencies provide the public with 30-60 days to submit comments). Iota Intel is happy to assist you!

   
   

2. Raise Concerns and Suggest Alternatives

   • Support your positions with data and real-world anecdotal examples, and provide agencies with thoughtful, constructive feedback.

   
   

3. Understand the Impacts

   • Know the full impact of new rules and guidance on you, your organization, and your industry. The devil is in the details, and while something may look simple on the surface, it may actually be more complicated and nuanced. Sometimes a rule is easy to understand, but others require a granular, detailed assessment of each and every nuance to ensure you are compliant and avoid penalties. Here again, Iota Intel provides excellent analysis that goes well beyond your typical summary.

How Iota Intel Can Help

At Iota Intel, we specialize in helping regulated parties and the public navigate complex regulatory landscapes. We provide clarity on the details of proposed and final agency guidance, and we empower our clients to effectively participate in the comment submission process. With the heightened need for clear, transparent rulemaking, we can craft comment letters that convey your position and raise valid concerns in a thoughtful, constructive manner, which agencies appreciate. It helps you become a valued, trusted partner in the process. We offer various packages to suit your needs, from helping craft a basic letter that responds to specific proposals to engaging in an iterative process with multiple drafts; and we can submit the letter on your behalf if you wish.

Once a rule is finalized, we can provide critical in-depth analysis to ensure your teams clearly understand all the nuances of what agencies expect from you.

In this post-Chevron era, engaging with the process early and effectively can make all the difference. Iota Intel is here to help you shape the future of regulations, ensuring your voice is heard and that regulatory outcomes are both legally sound and practically feasible.

The end of Chevron deference is not just a legal change - it is an invitation to build a more balanced and effective regulatory system. The question now is: How will you participate in shaping this new chapter? Contact Iota Intel to learn more about how we can help.

Contact Iota Intel