WASHINGTON — The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is asking motor carriers for advice on whether guidance documents issued by the agency should be updated – or in some cases dropped altogether.
A congressional mandate signed into law in 2015 requires that FMCSA conduct a review of its guidance at least every five years to ensure the documents are clear and that the guidance is consistently enforced and still necessary.
“As part of this review, FMCSA invites the public to identify and provide input on existing guidance documents that are good candidates for revision or rescission,” the agency stated in a notice published Monday.
FMCSA’s regulatory guidance portal contains roughly 1,300 documents dating from 1987, dealing with issues such as hours of service, ELD operations and specifications, the Drug & Alcohol Clearhinghouse, emergency declarations, and sexual harassment and assault in the workplace.
FMCSA conducted a similar review in early 2020 “culminating in the effective reissuance of all of the guidance in FMCSA’s guidance portal on March 3, 2020,” the agency stated. Roughly 150 guidance documents have been issued since then.
The agency is considering comments and other material during a 30-day comment period ending Sept. 12. It encourages commenters to provide the following information:
- A specific reference to the guidance document and associated statutes or regulations that the comment discusses. This should include the title or subject, the date of issuance, the guidance document number if available, the internet address of guidance location, or other source of the guidance document.
- A description of the problem with the specific guidance document. A comment that explains why the guidance document should be eliminated or revised is more useful than a comment that merely asserts that the guidance should be dropped or changed. Comments that reflect experience with the guidance or a related statutory or regulatory requirement and provide data describing that experience are more helpful than comments that are not tied to direct experience.
- A description of alternatives that are better than the specific guidance document. If the commenter believes that the objective that motivated the guidance document may be achieved using a better alternative, the commenter should describe that alternative in detail. Likewise, if the commenter believes that there is not a better alternative or there is not a legitimate objective served by the guidance document, then that should be explained in the comment.
- Examples of entities that are, have been or will be negatively affected by the specific guidance document and examples of entities that will benefit if the guidance is removed or revised. A comment listing specific entities is more useful because it will assist FMCSA in investigating the guidance document and its impact.