FMCSA takes steps toward removing ‘unnecessary regulations’

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s “big green book” is going on a diet, so to speak. And if the Trump administration has its way, the book will soon be significantly thinner.

In late May, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced more than 50 proposals or final rules primed for the chopping block. That included two final rules and 18 notices of proposed rulemaking from FMCSA.

The deregulatory actions are a result of the Trump administration’s focus on reducing the regulatory burden. President Donald Trump issued an executive order in January stating that before introducing a new regulation, at least 10 existing regulations must be targeted for elimination.

“Big government has been a big failure,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in May. “Under President Trump’s leadership, my department is slashing duplicative and outdated regulations that are unnecessarily burdensome, waste taxpayer dollars and fail to ensure safety. These are commonsense changes that will help us build a more efficient government that better reflects the needs of the American people.”

In late July, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association submitted formal comments, expressing support for FMCSA’s efforts to roll back regulations “that have no connection to safety performance.”

Rear guard labels

One of the DOT’s deregulatory actions that OOIDA has advocated for is the proposal to rescind the requirement that rear impact guards must be permanently marked or labeled with a certification from the manufacturer. This action has received support from industry and enforcement.

Although OOIDA agrees that rear impact guards are a practical piece of equipment that save lives, it contends that a missing decal should not be a violation.

“The presence of a certification label or marking serves no safety function after the trailer has been manufactured and sold to a motor carrier,” OOIDA wrote in its comments signed by President Todd Spencer. “Once the trailer is on the road, these labels can quickly become illegible or deteriorate during the service life of the trailer.

“The lack of a certification label has no bearing on the structural integrity or proper mounting of the rear impact protection guard. Yet, truckers with a missing or noncompliant rear impact guard have historically been subject to regulatory violations. The time and economic costs to comply with a regulation that has no discernible safety benefit do not help the productivity of small-business truckers.”

OOIDA added that the proposal is “a prime example of commonsense, cost-effective regulatory reform.”

Late last year, FMCSA issued guidance explaining that faded or missing rear-impact guard labels do not indicate a compliance issue. The clarification was issued in response to efforts by OOIDA, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and the American Trucking Associations.

The guidance was an important step toward making the focus the condition of rear impact guards rather than the label. This proposal would eliminate the label requirement altogether and remove the need for the regulatory guidance related to faded or missing labels.

CVSA and National Tank Truck Carriers also submitted comments in support of the deregulatory proposal.

“It is possible for a rear impact guard to have a certification label intact but not meet the minimum physical safety standards … at the time of inspection,” CVSA wrote in comments signed by Executive Director Collin B. Mooney. “Conversely, a rear impact guard could meet all the physical requirements … but be missing the required label due to normal wear and tear.”

Other proposals

Some of the other deregulatory proposals include rescinding such requirements as having the electronic logging device operator’s manual inside the vehicle, possessing spare fuses and making CDL holders self-report motor vehicle violations to their state of domicile.

OOIDA told the agency that the ELD operator’s manual requirement is another example of an unnecessary regulation that does not affect highway safety.

“This action is an example of commonsense regulatory reform,” OOIDA wrote. “We applaud the agency’s series of deregulatory proposals and urge FMCSA to further eliminate or modify unnecessary, ineffective regulations that have no connection to safety performance.”

Energy Marketers of America, a federation of 48 trade associations representing small-business fuel distributors and retailers, agreed that the ELD manual requirement was unnecessary.

“Modern enforcement tools and readily available electronic resources have rendered this documentation requirement obsolete,” EMA wrote. “Removing the manual-carry requirement reduces clutter in the vehicle cab, simplifies compliance audits and allows fuel marketers to focus training efforts on ensuring their drivers are proficient in using ELDs – not in maintaining duplicative documentation. This proposal exemplifies a practical approach to regulatory reform that retains core safety objectives while reducing paperwork burdens for small businesses.”

OOIDA and ATA both submitted comments in support of removing the spare fuses requirement.

“ATA supports the proposed removal of the requirement to carry spare fuses from the regulations,” the trucking group wrote. “ATA agrees with the agency’s assessment that modern trucks do not typically have issues with fuses during operation and the complexity of modern trucks does not make this requirement practical. ATA also believes that this requirement is impractical to enforce and ultimately does not have a meaningful impact on the safety of operations.”

Both organizations also supported removing the requirement that CDL holders self-report motor vehicle violations to their state of domicile. OOIDA said the regulation was unnecessary and called it redundant. LL