Speed limiter Legislation Debate

[kscarbel2]

Speed limiter mandate rule expected to see action soon, carrier scoring rule still months away

Overdrive / January 13, 2015

The Department of Transportation stuck with its projected June 17 publication date of a Safety Fitness Determination rule proposal in its latest rulemakings update, and it still expects to send a speed limiter mandate proposal to the White House for approval early next month.

The Safety Fitness Determination rule, in the works now in some form for eight years, has been in the final stages of review for some time now — an FMCSA official told Overdrive in October that the agency’s top brass was reviewing the proposal.

The rule, once final, will give the agency the authority to produce absolute scores of carriers based on a data set similar to the one used to produce Safety Measurement System rankings in the Compliance, Safety, Accountability program.

The rule’s projected publication date, however, has continued to be delayed. In December, the DOT pushed back the projected publication date by three months.

The speed limiter mandate, a joint rule between FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is projected to see action Feb. 2, the DOT report says, as the agency is projected to send the rule to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

The OMB is expected to clear the rule in May, and FMCSA is projected to publish it the same month.

The rule would require the installation and use of speed limiters on heavy trucks, though FMCSA hasn’t said what the governed speed would be.

Other rules in the DOT’s update include (1) a rule to prohibit coercion of drivers, scheduled to be published as a Final Rule Sept. 10, (2) a Final Rule mandating the use of electronic logging devices, scheduled to be published Sept. 30 and (3) the CDL drug and alcohol clearinghouse rule, scheduled to be published as a Final Rule Oct. 30.

[kscarbel2]

Safety ratings, ELDs, speed limiters among items on FMCSA 2015 calendar

Fleet Owner / January 13, 2015

The year 2015 looks to be a big and busy one for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, both in terms of the number of items on the regulatory agenda and in their significance to the trucking industry.

Among the highlights are a revamping of the way carrier safety is evaluated and rated, an electronic logging mandate, a speed limiter requirement, a drug and alcohol testing database, possible changes to insurance minimums and driver coercion protection.

Fleet Owner spoke recently with Dave Osiecki, executive vice president and head of advocacy for American Trucking Assns. about the key issues carriers should be aware of.

Fleets “can and should expect” the electronic logging device (ELD) rule to be published on schedule, Osiecki said, and that will open a two-year window for adoption. ATA doesn’t expect any last-minute problems, “with the possible exception of lawsuit” that might be filed post-publication, he added.

“The ELD rule’s a big deal for the agency and for the industry, of course,” he said.

And speaking of big deals, publication of the safety fitness determination (SFD) proposed rule this year will “take CSA to the next level,” Osiecki explained. FCMSA has long planned to incorporate roadside inspection data directly into carrier safety ratings.

It’s important to look closely at the proposed rule, he added, and to let FMCSA know what aspects carriers can support or have concerns about. Most troubling to ATA is the regulator’s willingness to push ahead while many in trucking and freight transportation question the direction of and continuous changes to the Compliance, Safety, Accountability program.

“There’s a lot of angst in the industry over the agency’s moving forward with a rule that’s going to codify a methodology that’s far from perfect and a system that is, in many ways, data starved,” Osiecki said.

ATA would like FMCSA to “re-propose” the driver drug and alcohol test clearinghouse rule, since the agency did not include all of the relevant violations.

“As proposed, it’s not a one-stop shop for an employer to go to,” Osiecki said. “That certainly wasn’t the intent of the industry when we advocated for it, and we don’t believe that was the intent of Congress when they required it.”

He also noted the EPA-driven Phase II in the greenhouse gas reduction standard which sets fuel economy minimums for heavy commercial vehicles, “again a big deal, for new trucks going forward.” Specifics are expected in the spring.

The complete list of FMCSA regulatory initiatives and publication dates scheduled for 2015 is below. (The monthly update of the Dept. of Transportation’s rulemaking calendar is available here.):

• Popular Title: Diabetes Standard

Stage: NPRM

Original publication date: 11/30/2010

Current Projected Date: 05/27/2015

This rulemaking action would amend FMCSA´s medical qualification standards to allow drivers with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce, without seeking an exemption from the FMCSRs.

• Popular Title: Carrier Safety Fitness Determination

Stage: NPRM

Original publication date: 03/29/2008

Current Projected Date: 06/17/2015

FMCSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to adopt revised methodologies that would result in a safety fitness determination (SFD).

• Popular Title: CDL Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse

Stage: Final Rule

Original publication date: 09/16/2015

Current Projected Date: 10/30/2015

This rulemaking would create a central database for verified positive controlled substances and alcohol test results for commercial driver´s license (CDL) holders and refusals by such drivers to submit to testing.

• Popular Title: ELDs and HOS supporting documents

Stage: Final Rule

Original publication date: 09/30/2015

Current Projected Date: 09/30/2015

This rulemaking would establish: (1) minimum performance and design standards for hours-of-service (HOS) electronic logging devices (ELDs); (2) requirements for the mandatory use of these devices by drivers currently required to prepare HOS records of duty status (RODS); (3) requirements concerning HOS supporting documents; and (4) measures to address concerns about harassment resulting from the mandatory use of ELDs.

• Popular Title: DVIR

Stage: Final Rule

Original publication date: 10/17/2014

Current Projected Date: 01/31/2015

This rulemaking would rescind the requirement that commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers operating in interstate commerce submit, and motor carriers retain, driver-vehicle inspection reports when the driver has neither found nor been made aware of any vehicle defects or deficiencies. Specifically, this rulemaking would remove a significant information collection burden without adversely impacting safety.

• Popular Title: Prohibition of Coercion

Stage: Final Rule

Original publication date: 09/10/2015

Current Projected Date: 09/10/2015

Section 32911 of MAP-21 amended 49 U.S.C. § 31136(a) to require that regulations governing commercial motor vehicle safety ´ensure ... an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a commercial vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under 49 U.S.C. § 31136 or chapters 51 or 313 of title 49, U.S.C.’

• Popular Title: Heavy Vehicle Speed Limiters

Stage: NPRM

Original publication date: 03/24/2014

Current Projected Date: 04/16/2015

This joint rulemaking with NHTSA would respond to petitions from ATA and Roadsafe America to require the installation of speed limiting devices on heavy trucks.

• Popular Title: MAP-21 CDL Requirements

Stage: NPRM

Original publication date: 05/18/2015

Current Projected Date: 10/16/2015

This rulemaking would grant military veterans an exemption from the domicile requirement, allowing the State they are stationed in to issue them a commercial driver’s license.

• Popular Title: Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility

Stage: ANPRM

Publication date: 11/28/2014

End of comment period: 02/26/2015

The FMCSA announces that it is considering a rulemaking to increase the minimum levels of financial responsibility for motor carriers, including liability coverage for bodily injury or property damage in the case of freight and passenger motor carriers.

[other dog]

...and they wonder why there's a driver shortage?..really?

As far as speed limiters, we've talked about how truck A is running 62 1/2 mph. trying to pass truck B running 62 mph. It only takes a minute for traffic to be backed up for miles, then everybody behind gets impatient. If everybody is governed at the same speed, there's gonna be fuster clucks like they've never seen before- everywhere.

[Green Dash]

...and they wonder why there's a driver shortage?..really?

As far as speed limiters, we've talked about how truck A is running 62 1/2 mph. trying to pass truck B running 62 mph. It only takes a minute for traffic to be backed up for miles, then everybody behind gets impatient. If everybody is governed at the same speed, there's gonna be fuster clucks like they've never seen before- everywhere.

The speed limiter is the only item above I have a problem with, and your scenario is exactly why. I drive a truck that is governed at 65 mph, often times on highways with 70 mph speed limits. Try as I might to avoid being in that situation, it still happens and is not only frustrating for all who are affected, but also a safety issue as far as I'm concerned.

No large truck needs to run triple digits on a public highway, but if safety is truly the concern then they should also not be limited to a speed that is lower than maximum the speed limit on American roads which to my knowledge is 75 MPH, with few exceptions. When enacted, I would also like to see companies prohibited from governing their trucks at a speed that is less than the posted limit on the roads they travel. THAT would make the roads safer for everyone.

[other dog]

The speed limiter is the only item above I have a problem with, and your scenario is exactly why. I drive a truck that is governed at 65 mph, often times on highways with 70 mph speed limits. Try as I might to avoid being in that situation, it still happens and is not only frustrating for all who are affected, but also a safety issue as far as I'm concerned.

No large truck needs to run triple digits on a public highway, but if safety is truly the concern then they should also not be limited to a speed that is lower than maximum the speed limit on American roads which to my knowledge is 75 MPH, with few exceptions. When enacted, I would also like to see companies prohibited from governing their trucks at a speed that is less than the posted limit on the roads they travel. THAT would make the roads safer for everyone.

You're absolutely right, that's common sense- which nobody thinking up all this crap and thinking it's a good idea seems to have.

[Brocky]

Part of this sped limiter issue also comes from the corporate bean counters who have NO experience with trucking..If some so called "experts" say that slower speeds will improve fuel mileage, that means we are more efficent, have to buy less fuel and therefore improve the bottom line. They forget that one lawsuit resulting from an accident wipes out the profit from a LOT of miles of .5 MPG savings. I used to work for one such company(Cut to 60 MPH), sure am glad I was able to retire!!

[41chevy]

Thank the lord I'm close to the age to get out of this crap. Paul

[BC Mack]

...and they wonder why there's a driver shortage?..really?

As far as speed limiters, we've talked about how truck A is running 62 1/2 mph. trying to pass truck B running 62 mph. It only takes a minute for traffic to be backed up for miles, then everybody behind gets impatient. If everybody is governed at the same speed, there's gonna be fuster clucks like they've never seen before- everywhere.

easy fix... formula 1 "push to pass" button...

just like the old cable operated ether start bottles helped when you only had 220hp....

BC Mack

[gearhead204]

I hope farm trucks will be exempt!

[6368]

the Brockway already has a speed limiter With 6.44s in the diffs its called the governor.

[Bullheaded]

Easy to fix. Many different ways to program them so they still show they are speed limited when plugged into, but will still run wide open. We've had to deal with this in Ontario Canada for a couple years now.

[MACKS]

My wife and i just got back from Florida vaca,we drove there and back,I cant believe how slow the trucks were going on 95,at the most 65mph and it was joke when one passed the other,took forever,obciously govenered already,the speed limit is 70 mostly so the cars are doing 80 and the trucks are doing 65,not good!

[mack mhe9]

sounds like a lot of work for something that already has laws. I think a sign on the side of the road that said speed limit? go over it you get a ticket.

[41chevy]

So, we have a a new law to limit speed to 62.5 m.p.h. , so it will take longer to do the load, a law limiting hours ( which works well with going slower) so shipping will cost more, products will retail for more and drivers doing few loads because of said laws, will make less money. With the proposed increase in the Federal fuel tax for gas from 18.4 cents to 30.4 cents and Diesel from 24.4 cents to 38.4 cents a gallon. Most states say they will increase the furl taxes also by 10 to 12 cents a gallon.

Seems like a typical one for "we're the government we are here to help". Paul

[Green Dash]

sounds like a lot of work for something that already has laws. I think a sign on the side of the road that said speed limit? go over it you get a ticket.

That's an antiquated law from a time when lawmakers didn't pull new rules out of their butts just because they were bored or wanted to justify their positions. The reversal of the two 1-5am periods required for a 34 hour reset is a perfect example. They couldn't see for themselves the impact that such a restriction would have on a business that runs 24/7/365 so it was made law. They needed someone to "draw them a picture". Now that the obvious has been pointed out at the expense of truck drivers and trucking companies, more money and man hours needed to be wasted to undo the changes needed to comply in the first place.

I agree that changing a law is not the solution when current the law is not adequately enforced.

[Green Dash]

easy fix... formula 1 "push to pass" button...

just like the old cable operated ether start bottles helped when you only had 220hp....

BC Mack

PGT Trucking has a system where the driver can temporarily override the governor in passing situations. It's a step in the right direction.

[85snowdog]

On 1/23/2015 at 1:06 AM, Bullheaded said:

Easy to fix. Many different ways to program them so they still show they are speed limited when plugged into, but will still run wide open. We've had to deal with this in Ontario Canada for a couple years now.

It just seems like a couple of years, its amazing how time flys. Its been 6 years now. Started Jan. 01/2009.

I know guys that have the trucks reprogrammed, or a hidden switch that will allow them to run faster than the speed limiter.

I've never had to worry about speed limiters on my old mechanical Macks.

Exempt because Its manufactured before 1995, and doesn't have an ECM.

13. (1) A commercial motor vehicle is exempt from subsections 68.1 (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Act if it is,

(a..) a bus;

( b.) a mobile crane;

(c.) a motor home;

(d.) a vehicle manufactured before 1995;

(e.) a vehicle with a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating under 11,794 kilograms; or

(f.) an ambulance, a cardiac arrest emergency vehicle, or a fire apparatus. O. Reg. 396/08, s. 1.

(2) For the purposes of clauses (1) (d) and (e), the date that a commercial motor vehicle was manufactured and its manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating shall be deemed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be,

(a.) the date and weight on the commercial motor vehicle’s compliance label; or

( b.) where a commercial motor vehicle does not have a compliance label affixed or the label is illegible, a document from the vehicle’s manufacturer that is carried by the driver and that references the vehicle’s vehicle identification number and indicates its year of manufacture and gross vehicle weight rating. O. Reg. 396/08, s. 1.

(3) A commercial motor vehicle is exempt from subsection 68.1 (1) of the Act if,

(a.) it is not equipped with an electronic control module capable of being programmed to limit vehicle speed;

( b.) it is engaged in providing relief in an emergency, being a situation or impending situation that constitutes a danger of major proportions to life, property or the environment, whether caused by forces of nature, an accident, an intentional act or otherwise; or

(c.) it is operated by or on behalf of a municipality, road authority, public utility or of the government of Ontario or of Canada while responding to a situation or impending situation that constitutes an imminent danger, though not one of major proportions, to life, property or the environment, whether caused by forces of nature, an accident, an intentional act or otherwise. O. Reg. 396/08, s. 1.

(4) A driver of a commercial motor vehicle is exempt from subsection 68.1 (1) of the Act if the vehicle is leased for 30 days or less by an individual for the transportation of the goods kept for the individual’s personal use. O. Reg. 396/08, s. 1.

 

 Info was copied from Ontario MTO site. 

[41chevy]

Don't worry, today the White house announced they are looking at adding a mileage tax of only 1.5 cents per mile to all commercial vehicles. The monies slated for infrastructure improvements.

N.Y. Governor Cumo is weighing in on increasing the N.Y. Highway Use Tax. Paul

[Green Dash]

Don't worry, today the White house announced they are looking at adding a mileage tax of only 1.5 cents per mile to all commercial vehicles. The monies slated for infrastructure improvements.

N.Y. Governor Cumo is weighing in on increasing the N.Y. Highway Use Tax. Paul

Sure, the price of fuel drops so lets go after some of the increased profits trucking companies are seeing.

[RowdyRebel]

If you click to disable smilies in the post it won't have smilies...gotta do that when you post rules and regs, because the letter b and ) will appear as ...and ( then c and ) will come up as ©.

[RowdyRebel]

After the trucking industry spent all that time and effort (and money) fighting to get those ridiculous and unsafe split speed limits changed, the ATA is pushing this crap to split the speeds once again. If you want to run slow to save fuel or to allow you to hire incompetent drivers who can't handle driving the speed limit in a large truck, that's fine. It doesn't mean I should have to ALSO slow to a crawl, because I actually have an experienced hand behind the wheel and my business model isn't designed around pinching pennies at the expense of that driver's time. TIME IS MONEY! Driving slow could be the difference between hauling a paying load home vs. bouncing home empty because I didn't quite make it in time to load it, or worse yet having out-of-route LOADED miles because I couldn't deliver the load on time and had to return the next day (setting me back that much farther on the start of the following day). It could also mean the difference between getting home legally and having to stretch my book to make it home....which won't be possible with e-logs, so who's going to pay for that motel room? Sure...I could pick up a half a mile per gallon or so by running 60 in a 70 zone....but it'd cost me a whole lot more than I'd save. The large carriers pushing for these ridiculous things don't give a flying f--- about their drivers' time or anything else besides their own bottom line. They aren't paying the driver by the hour, but rather by the mile. If the driver can't run as many miles, they get paid less....AND it saves fuel. Factor in the longer transport time when scheduling loads, and now you haven't lost anything as the company owner....but the DRIVER is out quite a bit.

Screw that. I'll be done if it gets that far. My CH will be converted to a single screw and I'll use it to pull the gooseneck horse trailer...beyond the reach of the FMCSA because it won't be a commercial motor vehicle.

[kscarbel2]

Truck speed limiter proposal clears White House review

Fleet Owner  /  August 15, 2016

After 15 months in review, the Heavy Vehicle Speed Limiters Proposed Rule has cleared the White House Office of Management and Budget, meaning it is available to be published in a matter of days and a public comment period will be begin.

The rulemaking, which originated nearly 10 years ago with petitions from Road Safe America and the American Trucking Assns., was officially initiated in May 2013 and was originally scheduled to be published in March 2014.

This past March, responding to a Senate budget panel who wanted to know why a proposal that is supported by both a trucking industry association and highway safety groups was so slow in coming, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx testified that he expected the proposal to be published “within the next month, or so,” calling it “a top priority.”

OMB approved the proposed rule as “consistent with change,” indicating the mandate meets federal regulatory guidelines, although it has been altered during the review period. OMB may also approve a rule without change or return it for revision by the submitting agency.

Still unknown by the public is the speed at which the limiters would be set under the proposal. ATA has asked for a 65 mph limit.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. (OOIDA), however, opposes such a rule, calling it “politically motivated” and contending there is “a lack of solid science” to back up such a mandate and that speed-limited trucks “would make highways less safe.”

More to come.

[kscarbel2]

U.S. Proposes Device to Force Trucks, Buses to Travel at Lower Speeds

The Wall Street Journal  /  August 26, 2016

The U.S. is seeking to forcibly limit how fast trucks, buses and other large vehicles can travel on the nation’s highways.

A new proposal Friday would impose a nationwide limit by electronically capping speeds with a device on newly made U.S. vehicles that weigh more than 26,000 pounds. Regulators are considering a cap of 60, 65 or 68 miles per hour, though that could change. Whatever the speed limit, drivers would be physically prevented from exceeding it.

The proposal, which comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, doesn’t force older heavy vehicles to add the speed-limiting technology, but the regulators are still considering it.

The government said capping speeds for new large vehicles would reduce the 1,115 fatal crashes involving heavy trucks that occur each year and save $1 billion in fuel costs.

While the news is being welcomed by some safety advocates and nonprofessional drivers, many truckers said such changes could lead to dangerous scenarios where they are traveling at much lower speeds than everyone else.

The rule has been ensnared in a regulatory maze in the decade since the nonprofit group Roadsafe America issued its first petition in 2006. The group was founded by Atlanta financial adviser Steve Owings and his wife Susan, whose son Cullum was killed by a speeding tractor-trailer during a trip back to school in Virginia after Thanksgiving in 2002. The nonprofit was later joined by the American Trucking Associations, the nation’s largest trucking industry group.

Mr. Owings said he would continue to push the NHTSA to force older heavy vehicles to limit their speeds.

“We are dismayed and outraged to learn the proposed rule will be for newly manufactured trucks and will not apply to the millions of trucks with which we continue to share the roads today,” he said.

The NHTSA said retrofitting vehicles made after 1990 with the speed-limiting technology could be too costly, and it is still seeking comments and additional information. The NHTSA said it could cost anywhere from $100 to $2,000 per vehicle, depending on when the vehicle was made.

Changes to some engines could also be required, increasing the costs, the NHTSA said. Heavy vehicles made before 1990 don’t have the capacity to add the technology.

The government agencies involved will take public comment for 60 days, then determine the final limit and decide if the regulation should be put in place.

To James Chapman, a big-rig driver from Spartanburg, S.C., 68 mph would be the best option and he’d accept 65. But 60 mph would be too big of a difference from cars that are traveling at 75 mph or more.

“To me it would be a safety hazard unless it slowed everybody else down,” he said while refueling his truck Friday along Interstate 75 near Findlay, Ohio.

The agencies said that limiting the speed of heavy vehicles to 60 mph could save as many as 498 lives annually. Limiting it to 65 mph could save as many as 214 lives, and limiting it to 68 mph could save as many as 96 lives. There are 3.6 million big rigs on U.S. roads.

The agencies said the proposal is based on available safety data and the additional benefit of better fuel economy.

[kscarbel2]

DOT Finally Proposes Truck Speed-Limiter Rule

Heavy Duty Trucking  /  August 26, 2016

Federal safety regulators are proposing that heavy-duty vehicles be equipped with speed-limiting devices set to a specific maximum speed. A notice of proposed rulemaking was issued jointly on Aug. 26 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

The NPRM comes after a decade-long push by trucking and safety advocates to put such a requirement in place for trucks and other commercial vehicles.

For its part, NHTSA is calling for establishing a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. This FMVSS would require that each new “multipurpose” vehicle with a GVWR over 26,000 pounds be equipped with a speed limiting device. 

The proposed standard would also require each vehicle, as manufactured and sold, to have its device set to a speed not greater than a specified speed and to be equipped with means of reading the vehicle’s current speed setting and the two previous speed settings (including the time and date the settings were changed) through its onboard diagnostic connection. 

FMCSA is proposing a complementary Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation that would require each commercial motor vehicle with a GVWR of more than 26,000 pounds be equipped with a speed limiting device meeting the requirements of the proposed FMVSS applicable to the vehicle at the time of manufacture, including the requirement that the device be set to a speed not greater than a specified speed. 

In addition, carriers operating such vehicles in interstate commerce would be required to maintain the speed limiting devices for the service life of the vehicle.

However, no speed limit has been proposed yet for the proposed limiters. The Department of Transportation said only that the proposal “discusses the benefits of setting the maximum speed at 60, 65, and 68 miles per hour, but the agencies will consider other speeds based on public input.”

“This is basic physics,” said NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind.  “Even small increases in speed have large effects on the force of impact.  Setting the speed limit on heavy vehicles makes sense for safety and the environment.”

The speed-limiter NPRM was initiated way back in May of 2013. Seven years before that, the American Trucking Associations petitioned the two agencies to require speed limiters on all large trucks that would be set in order to electronically limit top speed to no more than 65 mph.

According to DOT, the two agencies’ review of the available data indicates that limiting the speed of heavy vehicles would reduce the severity of crashes involving these vehicles and reduce the resulting fatalities and injuries. 

“We expect that, as a result of this joint rulemaking, virtually all of these vehicles would be limited to that speed,” stated DOT in its notice. DOT said that implementing the proposal safety “could save lives and more than $1 billion in fuel costs each year.”

“There are significant safety benefits to this proposed rulemaking,” said Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx. “In addition to saving lives, the projected fuel and emissions savings make this proposal a win for safety, energy conservation, and our environment.” 

The American Trucking Associations “hailed” the NPRM “as a potential step forward for safety.”  ATA President and CEO Chris Spear  said the lobby was “pleased NHTSA and FMCSA have, almost 10 years after we first petitioned them, released this proposal to mandate the electronic limiting of commercial vehicle speeds. Speed is a major contributor to truck accidents and by reducing speeds, we believe we can contribute to a reduction in accidents and fatalities on our highways.” 

Spear added that carriers that are already using speed limiters voluntarily “have found significant safety, as well as fuel efficiency and equipment lifespan benefits with little to no negative impact on productivity. We will be carefully reviewing and commenting upon today’s proposal.” 

Among those comments will be ATA’s position on the maximum speed setting and tamper-proofing of the devices. 

ATA said its 2006 petition seeking this rulemaking sought a maximum speed of 68 mph and that the association’s safety agenda calls for a national speed limit for all vehicles of 65 mph.

“In their proposal, the agencies say setting the speed at 68 could save 27 to 96 lives per year; setting it at 65 could save 63 to 214 lives annually and at 60 could save 162 to 498 lives,” ATA said in a statement, “but notes that they do not have the same confidence about the data for the 60 mph alternative as the other two options.” 

The association also said the proposed rule “despite ATA’s initial request does not mandate the limiters be tamper-proof, instead it proposes requiring motor carriers to maintain the speed limiting devices at a set speed within the range permitted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.”

While ATA has long been a proponent of speed limiters, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association responded to the NPRM by calling it a “dangerous mandate.”

OOIDA contends that use of “such devices create speed differentials that lead to more crashes and promote road rage among other motorists.” 

OOID also argues that speed limiters “actually take control out of the hands of drivers in that there are a number of scenarios that require drivers to accelerate in order to avoid danger.” 

“Highways are safest when all vehicles travel at the same relative speed,” said OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer. “This wisdom has always been true and has not ever changed. “No technology can replace the safest thing to put in a truck, which is a well-trained driver."

DOT will seek public comment on the proposed rule for 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register, which is likely to occur during the week of Aug. 29. Comments should be addressed to these DOT docket numbers: NHTSA-2016-0087 and FMCSA-2014-008.

Once the comment period opens, comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal.  Follow the online instructions for submitting comments  
• Mail. Docket Management Facility.  U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, D.C. 20590-0001
• Hand Delivery or Courier.  1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays 
• Fax. 202-493-2251

[kscarbel2]

Suggesting 60-68 mph, FMCSA, NHTSA propose truck speed limiters

Fleet Owner  /  August 26, 2016

A long-awaited, much-debated proposal for requiring speed limiters on heavy trucks was released today by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

While the 118-page proposal suggests that speed limits of 60, 65 or 68 mph would be beneficial, the agencies will get public input before setting the actual number, according to U.S. Transportation Sec. Anthony Foxx. The speed limit would be a physical one accomplished by a speed-governing device and would apply to all newly-manufactured vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating more than 26,000 lbs. (11,793.4 kg). 

The rule comes from both NHTSA and FMCSA to broaden its applicability. According to the proposed rule, NHTSA would require speed limiters for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses and school buses, while FMCSA would require them for commercial motor vehicles.

"Based on the agencies' review of the available data, limiting the speed of these heavy vehicles would reduce the severity of crashes involving these vehicles and reduce the resulting fatalities and injuries. We expect that, as a result of this joint rulemaking, virtually all of these vehicles would be limited to that speed," the proposal reads, with "that speed" yet to be determined.

In a release, Foxx argues that the proposed rule would save lives and more than $1 billion in fuel costs annually, making it "a win for safety, energy conservation and our environment." Foxx has referred to this rulemaking as a top priority for the Department of Transportation, and the proposed rule originally was due to be published in March 2014; the idea behind it dates back nearly a decade.  

NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind calls the proposal "basic physics" in the same release. "Even small increases in speed have large effects on the force of impact," he states. "Setting the speed limit on heavy vehicles makes sense for safety and the environment." And FMCSA Administrator Scott Darling contends that the proposal "will save lives while ensuring our nation's fleet of large commercial vehicles operates efficiently."

The proposed rule has been submitted for publication in the Federal Register, and once that happens there will be a 60-day period for public comment.

One group that's sure to have something to say will be the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), which has long been opposed to truck speed limiters and makes almost a polar opposite argument regarding the devices as the government does. On the heels of the proposed rule's release, OOIDA issued a statement calling it "dangerous" not only for truck drivers but for passenger vehicle drivers as well.

"The government's proposal to mandate speed limiting devices on large trucks would be dangerous for all highway users," OOIDA states. "Such devices create speed differentials that lead to more crashes and promote road rage among other motorists."

Todd Spencer, executive vice president of OOIDA, further states that "highways are safest when all vehicles travel at the same relative speed."