Speed limiter Legislation Debate

[kscarbel2]

Editorial: The Speed Limiter Debate

Transport Topics  /  October 17, 2016

It looks as if the comments on the speed-limiter proposal for heavy trucks will give the federal government plenty of reading material this winter.

Nearly [a mere] 3,000 comments have already been sent in to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And that does not include comments from many larger groups, such as American Trucking Associations, which have said they will respond prior to next month’s deadline.

The proposal, published Sept. 7, does not specify a speed that could be adopted in a final rule but suggests that setting limiters at 60 mph, 65 mph or 68 mph would save lives and reduce fuel use. It also comes about a decade after ATA and other groups initially called for a mandate.

When factoring the combination of the delay in issuing a proposal — and the confusion of a proposal with three separate speeds mentioned — it should be no surprise that people have not shied from sharing their opinions.

“I already drive a governed company truck. It is hard to try to stay out of the way of the flow of traffic,” Christopher Rickbrodt of Riverview, Florida, wrote. “In the Western states, where some speed limits are as high as 85 mph, running at 65 mph is really dangerous to other drivers who can’t judge the closing rate. I hate to say it, but either slow everyone down or leave it alone.”

Said Robert Jewett, a retired truck driver and chairman of the New Hampshire Professional Drivers Association: “I have over 42 years of commercial driving, and from what I hear and have seen is trucks at a lower speeds will be in the way of motorists, therefore causing more accidents making motorists at times take more chances.”

These are not people looking for ways to cut safety corners and make a few more bucks by putting the “pedal to the metal.”
The majority are truly concerned with the unintended consequences of having trucks and cars traveling at different speeds, especially when the limit on a highway is above 70 mph.

All of this comes a week after ATA President Chris Spear expressed similar concerns about what he called a “flawed” proposal.

It unfortunately sounds like it still will be a while before there is a final mandate. We can only hope trucking’s voice will be heard and a final mandate will reflect their serious safety concerns.

[kscarbel2]

SPEED LIMITERS: OOIDA Call-To-Action urges members to contact THUD committee

Land Line Magazine (OOIDA)  /  October 19, 2016

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is sending out a Call To Action urging members who oppose a proposed speed limiter mandate to contact members of the Transportation, Housing, Urban Development subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

Committee members include Republicans:

• Mario Diaz-Balart, Florida, chairman
• David Joyce, Ohio
• John Culberson, Texas
• Kevin Yoder, Kansas, vice chair
• David Jolly, Florida
• David Young, Iowa
• Evan Jenkins, West Virginia

And Democrats:

• David Price, North Carolina, ranking member
• Mike Quigley, Illinois
• Tim Ryan, Ohio
• Henry Cuellar, Texas

The Call To Action was sent out to OOIDA members who live in the subcommittee members’ Congressional districts.

“On Sept. 7, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would mandate speed limiters on heavy-duty trucks. The proposed regulation seeks to require that truck manufacturers activate speed limiters at the time of manufacture and all trucks already on the road with engine control modules (ECUs) capable of restricting speed have the devices activated.

“In the coming weeks, Congress will be deciding whether to include a Senate amendment passed earlier this year requiring the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule mandating speed limiting devices on trucks in a bill funding the Department of Transportation. At this time, OOIDA is urging our members to call their lawmakers and educate them about the real dangers of speed limiters.”

OOIDA’s website, FightingForTruckers.com, has more information about the Association’s opposition to the proposal, as well as ways for truckers to contact their lawmakers via letter and oppose a mandate. 

The FightingForTruckers website also includes a link to a list of talking points members can reference when filing comments for NHTSA and FMCSA to consider during the rulemaking process. Drivers who currently drive or have driven speed-limited trucks are encouraged to share their personal experiences and real-world, on-the-road problems they’ve faced when using such devices.

OOIDA encourages its members to submit comments via Regulations.gov at Docket FMCSA-2014-0083 or Docket NHTSA-2016-0087 (All comments received will be duly considered by the joint NHTSA and FMCSA team; comments only need to be posted to one docket). The public comment period will be open until Monday, Nov. 7.

Before you start through the electronic process on the internet, be sure you have the correct Docket ID. This is how the docket management system knows what you are specifically addressing in your comments.

The Docket ID identifies a regulatory action the agency is putting in the record for public view and possible comment. It contains a series of letters and numbers separated by dashes; for example, FMCSA-2014-0083 and NHTSA-2016-0087 are the dockets related to speed limiters. You can comment on one or the other. It is not necessary to submit comments to both. The dashes are critical when looking up a particular rulemaking. When you’re searching for a specific document to comment on, if you use the dashes incorrectly, or not at all, you won’t find the document you’re looking for.

The following steps will walk you through finding the docket that is open for comments and into the comment process.

Go to Regulations.gov:

• Fill in the “Search” field with the Docket ID and either hit enter or click on “Search.”
• On the search results page, you will see the title of the docket you want to comment on and there will be a comment icon below it. Click on the icon.
• The comment page will load, and all you need to do is scroll down until you see the form for you to fill in and submit your comments to the agency.
• You only have to fill out the field with the red asterisk beside it. All other fields are optional – so you can file comments anonymously if you want to.
• Once you have filled out all fields with the personal information, if you choose to provide it, and have typed your comments in the “General Comments” box, you simply scroll down and hit the “Next step” button.
• You will then be able to scroll down, preview your comments and either click on the “Cancel/Exit,” “Edit,” “Print” or “Submit” button.

Of course, submitting comments electronically via the internet isn’t your only option. You can still:

• Fax comments with the Docket ID number, not the Document ID, to 202-493-2251;
• Mail comments with the Docket ID number, not the Document ID, to:

Docket Management Facility
U.S. Department of Transportation
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20590-0001

• Or hand deliver comments between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday except on federal holidays to the ground floor of the U.S. Department of Transportation building, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, D.C.

The Association opposes mandatory speed limiters because they are dangerous for all highway users. The federal proposal is based on unfounded data that will likely detract from highway safety. In actuality, highways are safest when all vehicles travel at the same relative speed.

If you still have questions after you’ve reviewed the info at FightingForTruckers.com, feel free to call OOIDA at 800-444-5791 if you need additional assistance.

 

 

[kscarbel2]

Comment Period on Proposed Speed-Limiter Rule Extended to Dec. 7

Transport Topics  /  November 1, 2016

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have extended the deadline for public comments on their proposed speed-limiter rule by 30 days to Dec. 7, the agencies announced Nov. 1.

The proposed rule would require all newly manufactured U.S. trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating more than 26,000 pounds to be equipped with speed-limiting devices.
According to FMCSA, requiring speed limiters on large commercial vehicles could save lives, as well as an estimated $1 billion in fuel costs annually.

American Trucking Associations, along with 50 state trucking associations, had asked for a 30-day extension in a Sept. 9 letter to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

“In the nearly 10 years since ATA concurrently petitioned NHTSA and FMCSA for action on this important issue, much has changed in vehicle and motor carrier safety,” ATA President Chris Spear wrote in the letter, citing advances in technology, stricter regulatory oversight and increases in speed limits at the state level.

“These developments, along with new state laws and speed limits, have changed the way motor carriers view and respond to safety concerns. In addition, the proposed rule’s dramatic departure from ATA’s initial petition in terms of tamper-proofing, the lack of a retrofit requirement, and the agencies’ reluctance to specify a governed speed requires additional time for ATA and its federation partners to re-engage its membership on these important issues,” Spear added.

[kscarbel2]

DOT extends comment period for speed limiter plan

Fleet Owner  /  November 1, 2016

With less than week remaining on the initial deadline, the Dept. of Transportation on Tuesday issued a 30-day extension to file comments on the truck speed limiter proposal.

“The new public comment deadline of Dec. 7 will provide all interested parties sufficient opportunity to fully develop and submit comments and evidentiary materials to the agencies,” the DOT notice says.

While the 118-page proposal suggests that speed limits of 60, 65 or 68 mph would be beneficial, the agencies will gather public input before setting the actual number. The speed limit would be managed by a governing device and would apply to all newly-manufactured vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating more than 26,000 lbs.

Both the American Trucking Assns. and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. had requested more time to evaluate and gather member input on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published Sept. 7 by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

An ATA petition had prompted the rulemaking, but the DOT proposal has not earned the endorsement of the group.

“In my humble opinion, we think this is flawed,” Chris Spear, ATA’s president and CEO, told reporters last month. “We cannot afford to elevate risk to the motoring public [for] this [speed limiter] rule does not even take the danger of differential speeds for cars and trucks into account.” 

OOIDA, which represents small business truckers, had asked for a 60-day extension of the comment period, citing the “wide range of issues” related to limiting truck speed and noting that the proposal is “based on complex research that in some instances is being used in an unconventional way.”

More than 3,000 comments have been submitted in the two months since the proposal was posted. Comments may be posted or viewed here.

[kscarbel2]

SPEED LIMITERS: Opponents of mandate cite safety concerns of differential speeds

Land Line (OOIDA)  /  November 7, 2016

More than 5,000 comments have been filed already. The majority of those opposed to a proposed mandate to speed limit vehicles weighing more than 26,000 pounds say the risks posed by increasing vehicle interactions via speed differentials outweigh any purported safety benefit of slowing large trucks and buses down.

A Sept. 7 joint notice of proposed rulemaking by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, seeks public comment on a variety of issues connected with speed limiters, including whether to set the speed at 60, 65 or 68 mph. The agencies claim that reducing the travel speed of large vehicles will lead to a reduction in the severity of crashes, thereby reducing the number of fatal and serious injuries and reducing property damage.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association opposes a government mandate speed limiting trucks, pointing to research that contradicts the fed’s claimed “safety benefits” of speed limiters, as it would force a speed differential between heavy trucks and other vehicles using the highways. That would lead to more vehicle interactions, unsafe maneuvering and crashes, a study of speed differentials shows.

Many of the comments submitted by professional drivers and owner-operators echo the sentiments shared by Marek Kosarewicz, who says a proposed mandate would cause more problems than it would solve. Among the problems Kosarewicz cites in his comment is that speed limiters would not address the issue of trucks traveling faster than the posted speed in work zones or other areas where the speed limit is less than highway speed.

“One of the main issues I see with a mandate is that it will not prevent speeding in towns with lower speed limits and especially work zones; actually it will become more common, putting workers at risk,” Kosarewicz stated in his comments. “I lost count of how many trucks from the megafleets I have seen flying by me running against their governed speed and tailgating me when I’m driving the posted work zone speed limit.”

Bill De Witt, who identified himself as a commercial driver with more than 42 years of experience, commented that there is no way to ensure equal speed on all trucks, because of differences in tire wear and gearing. He also said his experience running in states with split speeds such as California and Oregon allowed him to see the risks of speed differentials firsthand.

“I have had cars pass me on the right and left shoulders as two trucks pass each other on a two lane interstate. It already blocks traffic when two fleet trucks with 65 mile-per-hour limiters pass each other,” De Witt stated in his comments. “Having run in split-speed-limit states (i.e., California, Oregon, Washington) for years, I have seen firsthand the rear end accidents and near misses as cars pass on the right to get around a slower vehicle.”

The issue of tire wear and gearing ratios contributing to potentially inaccurate speedometer readings was also raised in comments filed by the Truck Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA). In its comments filed Oct. 21, the group requested an additional 30-day extension of the comment period to research the impact of the issue further, noting that inaccuracies in the number of revolutions per mile for a particular tire would affect the accuracy of the vehicle speedometer.

“Those inaccuracies are particularly concerning as we consider the performance requirements in the proposed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 140 in the NPRM,” wrote Timothy Blubaugh on behalf of EMA. “Since the manufacturer would need to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 140 before introducing a vehicle into commerce, we are carefully analyzing the proposed requirements to assess whether they include tolerances that are appropriate for production vehicles.”

The agencies announced a 30-day extension of the comment period last week.

Other national groups who filed comments opposing the proposed mandate or expressing concerns with the current proposal include the National Motorists Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Groundwater Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business.

Many of the comments in favor of the proposal also voiced support for any mandate being extended to include retrofitting all heavy vehicles with speed limiters. Groups who filed comments in support of the mandate include the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the National Safety Council, and the National Transportation Safety Board.

NTSB also filed comments in support of the measure, but referred to the current proposal as an “interim step” toward an eventual requirement that all newly manufactured heavy vehicles be equipped with “advanced speed limiting technology” such as variable speed limiters and intelligent speed adaption devices, which would address concerns that electronic engine control unit-based speed limiters do not prevent speeding in locations where the speed limit is lower than the governed speed or stop vehicles from exceeding the governed speed when traveling downhill.

OOIDA’s website, FightingForTruckers.com, has more information about the Association’s opposition to the proposal, as well as ways for truckers to contact their lawmakers via letter and oppose a mandate.

The FightingForTruckers website also includes a link to a list of talking points members can reference when filing comments for NHTSA and FMCSA to consider during the rulemaking process. Drivers who currently drive or have driven speed-limited trucks are encouraged to share their personal experiences and real-world, on-the-road problems they’ve faced when using such devices.

OOIDA encourages its members to submit comments via Regulations.gov at Docket FMCSA-2014-0083 or Docket NHTSA-2016-0087 (All comments received will be duly considered by the joint NHTSA and FMCSA team; comments only need to be posted to one docket). The public comment period will close Wednesday, Dec. 7.

[kscarbel2]

Speed Limiters: Michigan DOT opposes mandate

Greg Grisolano, Land Line (OOIDA)  /  November 16, 2016

Count the Michigan Department of Transportation among the growing chorus of opposition to a proposal to speed limit heavy vehicles.

Among the criticisms of the proposed speed limiter mandate outlined by MDOT Director Kirk Steudle, are the cost of enforcement, the dangers posed by speed differentials, and that the mandate is tantamount to a de facto national speed limit for trucks and buses.

“This rule would be contrary to the intent of Congress to relieve states from mandated speed limits, as expressed in the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, which repealed the national maximum speed limit,” Steudle wrote. “MDOT believes that the ability to establish and amend speed limits should be left to each state as Congress intended.”

More than 5,000 comments have been filed already. The majority of those opposed to a proposed mandate to speed limit vehicles weighing more than 26,000 pounds say the risks posed by increasing vehicle interactions via speed differentials outweigh any purported safety benefit of slowing large trucks and buses down.

A Sept. 7 joint notice of proposed rulemaking by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, seeks public comment on a variety of issues connected with speed limiters, including whether to set the speed at 60, 65 or 68 mph. The agencies claim that reducing the travel speed of large vehicles will lead to a reduction in the severity of crashes, thereby reducing the number of fatal and serious injuries and reducing property damage.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association opposes a government mandate speed limiting trucks, pointing to research that contradicts the fed’s claimed “safety benefits” of speed limiters, as it would force a speed differential between heavy trucks and other vehicles using the highways. That would lead to more vehicle interactions, unsafe maneuvering and crashes, a study of speed differentials shows.

MDOT’s comments also weighed in on the speed differential issue, describing the government’s decision to “set aside the issue of crash rates” as a risky approach.

“This proposed rule depends for its justification only on truck-involved crashes whose outcomes may be worsened by truck speed. This number could conceivably be exceeded by new crashes caused by impeding the flow of light-vehicle traffic around slow-moving trucks,” Steudle wrote. “Slowing the speed of all trucks will certainly result in more points of conflict on the roadways.”

Other national groups who filed comments opposing the proposed mandate or expressing concerns with the current proposal include the National Motorists Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Groundwater Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business. 

Groups who filed comments in support of the mandate include the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the National Safety Council, and the National Transportation Safety Board.

OOIDA’s website, FightingForTruckers.com, has more information about the Association’s opposition to the proposal, as well as ways for truckers to contact their lawmakers via letter and oppose a mandate.

The Fighting For Truckers website also includes a link to a list of talking points members can reference when filing comments for NHTSA and FMCSA to consider during the rulemaking process. Drivers who currently drive or have driven speed-limited trucks are encouraged to share their personal experiences and real-world, on-the-road problems they’ve faced when using such devices.

OOIDA encourages its members to submit comments via Regulations.gov at Docket FMCSA-2014-0083 or Docket NHTSA 2016-0087. All comments received will be duly considered by the joint NHTSA and FMCSA team. Comments only need to be posted to one docket. The public comment period will close Wednesday, Dec. 7.

[kscarbel2]

Carrier consensus on speed limiter mandate: 65 mph and retroactive; truckers remain ‘vehemently’ opposed

Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  December 8, 2016

Though the majority of commenters who filed formal feedback with the U.S. DOT on its proposal to mandate speed governor use in the trucking industry adamantly oppose such a rule, most comments from fleets — albeit large ones — offer support for the mandate and provided regulators constructive guidance on what a final rule should look like.

The 90-day public comment period on the September-issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking closed late Wednesday. The proposed rule was developed and published jointly by the DOT agencies the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. See CCJ’s coverage of the rule and its contents at this link.

Several prominent commenters said the DOT’s September-issued proposal was too incomplete and requires another iteration before being made a final rule. But most commenters, as noted above, stated strong opposition to any form of speed limiter mandate.

The American Trucking Associations, the Truckload Carriers Association and the newer Trucking Alliance — trade groups that represent fleets large and small — all proposed a 65 mph speed limit for the rule. ATA, however, says it can’t support the DOT’s proposed rule until regulators produce more data.

“ATA cannot support the proposed rulemaking, absent additional data and research demonstrating that it would not create new safety hazards that might outweigh any safety benefits anticipated by the agencies. In addition, the agencies failed to adequately explore alternative emerging technologies that may soon render speed limiters obsolete, by addressing the same concerns without creating the potential risks of the proposed rule,” ATA wrote in its comments. “In short, the NPRM leaves too many important questions unanswered—questions that the agencies cannot simply shrug their collective shoulders at.”

TCA says its also advocates for a 65 mph limit. “We recognize that traveling too fast for conditions is one of the most prominent reasons for accidents/safety events on our roads today. However, we would be remiss if we did not recognize that over ninety five percent of the hours driven are on our nation’s highways, thus concluding that the majority of our industry is operating at speeds consistent with highway/interstate travel,” the group said. “In recognizing that, we must conclude that we, as an industry, have a safety obligation to responsibly operate our vehicles at speeds in which we can effectively control and limit the opportunity for accidents.”

Most carriers who commented agreed the DOT should adopt a 65 mph speed limit, and the mandate should retroactively apply to trucks already in use, not just new trucks rolling out of factories, they said.

“It is unfortunate that there is not more science to support a specific speed recommendation contained within the NPRM. As a result, CTG recommends a maximum speed of 65 mph,” wrote Covenant Transportation Group (No. 41 in the CCJ Top 250). “Theoretically, consistent speeds of 65 mph may reduce congestion caused by one truck passing another with a minimal speed difference of just a few miles per hour, or less.”

“We truly believe the benefits achieved in saving lives and reducing injuries by controlling the maximum speed of commercial motor vehicles far outweigh any argument against the rule,” wrote J.B. Hunt (No. 6 in the CCJ Top 250).

Werner Enterprises (No. 11) says while it supports an industry-wide mandate for maximum truck speeds, the proposed rule presents several “deficiencies,” the carrier says, that need to be addressed before a permanent rule is issued. “Beyond the consideration of interactions between cars and speed-limited trucks, the proposed rule only applies to newly manufactured trucks and therefore, neglects to calculate the safety risk between non-limited trucks and newly manufactured speed-limited trucks driving on our roadways,” the carrier said in its comment. “If the rule moves forward, the agencies will need to consider all aspects to achieve compliance of the final rule speed standard with the significant majority of operating trucks to reduce the safety risk of speed differentials.”

C.R. England, meanwhile, urged NHTSA and FMCSA to adopt the rule as quickly as it can. It also wrote that since most trucks built since the early 1990s are manufacturer-equipped with the ability to have their speeds electronically limited, the mandate should cover all vehicles, says C.R. England (No. 19) in its comment. “C.R. England urges FMCSA and NHTSA to impose the rule on all existing heavy vehicles either through activation of ECM technology already available on most vehicles or through the installation of approved retrofitted speed limiting devices,” the Salt Lake City-based carrier said. “There is a strong correlation between speed and crash severity in truck accidents; the higher the speed of the truck, the more severe the injuries of those involved. Instituting the speed limiter rule will not only save lives and prevent catastrophic injury; it will also make significant contributions to safer driving and reduce collisions.”

Many commenters posed questions for the two agencies responsible for the rule, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Such comments pressed the agencies on the scant nature of the proposal, which failed to not only specify a mandated speed but to propose a concrete scope for the rule.

The enforcer community’s Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, for instance, called for the agency to flesh out the rule further and publish a so-called Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to give the industry a look at a more complete rule proposal and to provide feedback. “This will allow stakeholders to fully evaluate the proposal and provide constructive input, ensuring more effective deployment and enforcement of speed limiters,” CVSA writes. The group said it supports a speed limiter mandate overall.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), a vocal and staunch critic of the speed limiter mandate from the onset, filed a 41-page comment tearing down the rule and regulators’ intentions. OOIDA “vehemently” opposes the rule, it says, calling it damaging to owner-operators’ and independents’ ability to compete in the marketplace against larger carriers. The group also says the rule’s initiation is illegal, given new stipulations passed last year by Congress in the FAST Act highway bill. Rules classified as “major rules,” as the limiter mandate is, have to be initiated as an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or a Negotiated Rulemaking, says OOIDA.

OOIDA contends a speed limiter mandate would also damage highway safety efforts, rather than bolster them. As noted in prior CCJ coverage, OOIDA says the speed differential created between trucks and other vehicles on the highway poses a much greater safety risk than higher truck speeds. “Instead of relying upon concrete evidence and data about actual motor carrier and driver experience associated with speed limiters, the agencies have resorted to postulating a theoretical reduction in crash severity and environmental benefits.”

The Western States Trucking Association also said neither NHTSA nor FMCSA have the legal authority to promulgate a rule to mandate speed limiters. “Contrary to the statements made in the preamble, the joint proposed rules are not based on any safety need but, rather, on a misguided effort to use federal traffic safety laws to govern emissions of greenhouse gases from trucks. Neither NHTSA nor FMCSA has the legal authority to misuse federal law in that manner. Accordingly, the commenters believe the joint proposed rules are misguided, counterproductive, illegal and dangerous,” writes the Texas Public Policy Foundation, who developed and filed comments on behalf of Western States, a Texas-based trucker and a Texas-based carrier.

Comments from hundreds, if not thousands, of truckers show they agree with OOIDA’s and WSTA’s assertions. The docket, which contains nearly 4,500 comments total, is brimming with comments from truck operators framing the rule as unsafe, overly intrusive and unnecessary.

CCJ sister site Overdrive has published a roundup of comments from owner-operator and truck driver commenters. See that story at this link.

Purported safety groups like Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety and the Truck Safety Coalition both asked the DOT to limit speeds to 60 mph and make the mandate industry-wide.

 

[kscarbel2]

Speed-Limiter Regulation Hits Roadblock in Trump’s Quest to Cut Rules

Transport Topics  /  July 5, 2017

Years of pleas from parents whose son was killed by a speeding tractor-trailer, buy-in from some truckers and the promise of fewer highway deaths convinced U.S. officials in September to propose requiring speed-limiting devices on all large rigs.

All it took was a few minutes for President Donald Trump to sign an order putting that regulation and hundreds of others in limbo.

“This ought to be the biggest slam dunk you ever thought of,” said Steve Owings, whose son, Cullum, died in 2002. The latest hurdle for the truck-speed proposal is “very, very disconcerting,” Owings said.

Trump brought a reformer’s zeal against regulations into the White House, vowing to block what he calls unnecessary rules across the government that stifle business and slow hiring. The order he signed in January requires agencies to kill two existing rules for each new one and caps the costs of new regulations — even ones backed by industry, lawmakers and the public.

At the Department of Transportation, for example, it has brought a near halt to the regulatory process, forcing delays or rethinking of rules brokered through years-long efforts at compromise, enjoying at least some industry support and projected to create significant benefits.

The speed-limiting devices for trucks — already mandated in most developed nations — would save hundreds of lives, lower fuel use and provide as much as $6.5 billion in benefits per year, the department estimated.

If a rule like the truck-speed restriction is to get finalized, agencies have to find a way to save billions of dollars by cutting other regulations. The president has cast the effort as a way to free business of unnecessary burdens.

‘Morality Play’

It’s a “simplistic morality play” to say regulations are either inherently harmful to business interests or are purely for the benefit of the public, said Jerry Ellig, a senior research fellow at the George Mason University’s Mercatus Center who specializes in the issue.

“Most regulations benefit some businesses and harm other businesses,” he said.

Under the umbrella of transportation agencies regulating aviation, automobiles, rail and highways, of the 43 proposed rules subject to review under Trump’s order, 34 — or 79% — are designed to improve safety, according to a Bloomberg News review.

Two would attempt to mitigate the hazards of trains hauling oil, which have derailed and exploded in recent years. Two more, born from the last major U.S. airline accident that killed 50 people in 2009, aim to improve pilot performance. Including the Owings’s truck proposal, at least 10 are focused on reducing the carnage on U.S. roadways, which took 35,000 lives in 2015.

At least 15 of DOT’s actions were designed to address concerns raised by National Transportation Safety Board investigations of accidents.

For safety advocates like Deborah Hersman, the former NTSB chairman who now heads the nonprofit National Safety Council, it’s frustrating seeing DOT’s proposed rules being held up while the agency searches for rules it can undo.

“It’s like Sophie’s Choice. You’re asking people to pick between one thing that will kill you and another thing that will kill you,” Hersman said.

Required by Congress

Almost half of the pending regulations were required, at least in part, by Congress. They include rollover enhancements for motor coaches and safety upgrades for U.S. transit systems. While agencies are bound to adopt rules mandated by Congress, they generally must still find cost savings and other regulations to cut, according to White House guidance.

The new policies apply to proposals that would cost society more than $100 million or are deemed unusual, a category known as “significant.” Military, national security and foreign affairs regulations are exempt.

The result is that it’s almost certain to be harder for agencies like the Transportation Department to enact new rules, according to Richard Morgenstern, a fellow at the nonpartisan Resources for the Future and a former U.S. official with experience in crafting regulations.

“You now have additional constraints which you didn’t have before,” Morgenstern said in an interview.

By numerous measures, regulatory actions have slowed under the new administration. DOT hasn’t updated its monthly list of pending rules since Trump took office. It has halted or delayed implementation of some Obama-era rules, such as airline consumer measures and safety rules for electric and hybrid cars. It hasn’t finalized any of the pending regulations it inherited, including the truck-speed measure, according to government records.

The slowdown has occurred across government, from rules governing how coal royalties are calculated to methane gas releases.

In several cases, this slowdown has frustrated the very industries being regulated. Drone groups, for example, have urged swift action to create rules allowing unmanned aircraft to operate over people’s heads, arguing it’s needed to allow the industry to expand. Battery manufacturers also want the United States to adopt regulations restricting how airlines can carry flammable lithium cells so rules are consistent across borders.

To the advocates for Trump’s regulatory slowdown, the purpose isn’t to block new safety measures or rules that would benefit people.

“That would be perverse,” Marcus Peacock, who briefly served in Trump’s Office of Management and Budget and has become executive vice president of the Business Roundtable lobbying group, said at an April public forum.

Peacock and others said that for decades there hasn’t been an incentive to remove outdated regulations or to streamline such things as paperwork requirements on businesses. The Trump orders will push agencies to be more efficient, and it should be easy to find enough savings among existing rules to allow for new regulations, he said.

Costs of Regulations

The stakes for interest groups and society as a whole are enormous.

During the Obama administration, DOT forecast that benefits on 18 of the pending rules — reduced accident deaths and injuries, improved health and lower fuel consumption among other gains — would total almost $200 billion and outweigh costs by more than four to one.

But the regulations also would create a wide array of additional costs for businesses and society, including required purchases of new equipment by companies or, as in the case of the speed-limiter proposal, the financial impact of delays in delivering goods. Those costs are estimated at about $44 billion.

While the cost and benefit estimates are viewed skeptically by conservative groups and some industries, they remain the benchmark for the Trump administration. Under Trump’s regulatory reform orders, that means transportation officials must find billions of dollars in savings by cutting or revising existing rules before finalizing those regulations.

‘Top Priority’

The Transportation Department has allowed some regulations finalized in the final days of the Obama administration to become law, such as training standards for commercial drivers, the agency said in e-mailed statements. Officials believe there are inefficient rules that can be dropped or revised without compromising safety, which is the agency’s “top priority.” So far, details about which existing rules the administration is targeting for elimination have been sparse.

“This is an exciting time in Washington,” the agency said in a statement. “We share the president’s commitment to reducing unreasonable regulatory burdens that stifle innovation and undermine shared prosperity without promoting safety.”

The White House referred a request for comment to OMB, which didn’t respond to emails.

Speed Limiters

One of the most expensive pending transportation regulations — and therefore one requiring the elimination of significant existing regulations if it is ever to become law — is the Owings’s speed-limiter measure.

Cullum Owings, 22, was a college senior on his way to school after Thanksgiving in 2002 when a truck slammed into his car as he was stopped in traffic on a Virginia highway. The truck had been speeding and the driver applied the brakes too late to stop.

Determined to do something, his parents formed a group called Road Safe America. After they and American Trucking Associations, the largest U.S. trade group for truckers, petitioned the government seeking speed limiters, the Republican administration of President George W. Bush began the process of drawing up a proposal in 2007, according to records.

Progress was slow and support mixed. When the proposed rule was finally issued nine years later on Sept. 7, the Owings felt it didn’t go far enough because it would only require the devices on newly built trucks.

Groups representing smaller trucking companies, including the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, argued that limiting speeds wouldn’t reduce crashes. Over time, some members of the ATA got cold feet and the organization raised concerns in comments to the government. But the Trucking Alliance, a group made up of some of the largest trucking companies, many of which already use speed-limiters, has remained in favor, according to an April 12 letter to Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.

Government reviews found the benefits far exceeded the costs it would impose on industry in delayed shipments of goods. Costs are projected to be from $209 million to $1.6 billion a year. Fuel savings alone would exceed that, the government projected, and overall benefits including fewer highway deaths would range from $684 million to $6.5 billion a year.

Owings said government officials he’s spoken with who are shepherding the regulation seem uncertain how to proceed under the White House’s new guidelines. A financial planner in Atlanta, he says he has sympathy with Trump’s call for reducing wasteful regulations. He just doesn’t think it makes sense for what he sees as a life-saving measure with little downside.

“You would think that this should be so simple,” he said.

[HeavyGunner]

I think they also have to consider the fuel mileage argument might not be true for the day cab drivers who are home every night that arent putting on tons of miles everyday like over the road guys. Before we got the tattletales (ELD's and cameras) we used to drive 65mph. Now on a 3 hour run each way I can only do 60mph which costs me a half hour along with that stupid mandatory 30 min break which is a joke, I lose an hour out of my work day. So if everything doesn't work perfectly everyday I lose a load. The company takes a hit because less loads are hauled and I take a hit as well. I also think that being able to do the same speed limit as cars would help tremendously because you wouldn't be forcing every vehicle to pass you. 

[kscarbel2]

Speed limiter mandate stripped from Trump DOT agenda

James Jaillet, Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  July 24, 2017

The U.S. Department of Transportation, as expected under the Trump administration, has signaled it will not continue to pursue a rulemaking to mandate the use of speed limiters in the trucking industry, at least any time soon. However, the DOT still considers instituting sleep apnea screening protocol for truck operators and carrier employers as a near-term priority.

In its latest biannual update to its regulatory calendar, the DOT has moved the speed limiter mandate, which was issued as a proposed rulemaking last September, to a long-term agenda item, away from the active rulemakings list. Given the erosion of industry support for a speed limiter rule over the past year and the Trump administration’s reluctance to implement new regulations, industry stakeholders assumed the Trump DOT would drop or stall the speed limiter rulemaking.

Thursday’s update to the DOT calendar confirmed those expectations.

The DOT retained the rulemaking regarding sleep apnea screening for truck operators as a current agenda item, however, despite shifting an equivalent rulemaking for train operators to a long-term agenda item.

The sleep apnea screening rule is still in a pre-rule stage, according to the DOT’s regulatory update. The rule will, if it comes to fruition, institute criteria to determine which drivers would be required to be tested for sleep apnea, likely based on their BMI and other conditions, such as age, heart conditions and more. However, the DOT offered no timeline for when it would issue a proposed rule or other initiative regarding sleep apnea screening.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Medical Advisory Board last year issued recommendations to guide the agency in developing the rule. See its recommendations for which drivers could be required to be tested for sleep apnea at this link.

[kscarbel2]

Speed limiter rule at a standstill – for now

Fleet Owner  /  July 25, 2017

The proposal requiring the installation of speed limiters on heavy trucks has come to a standstill – at least for now, according to an updated agency rule list released by the Office of Management and Budget.

Last week, the U.S. Dept. of Transportation moved the speed limiter mandate to a long-term item and off the active rulemakings list. After 10 years in the making, the proposed rule, announced Aug. 26, 2016, is a joint proposal of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

The proposal suggests that speed limits of 60, 65 or 68 mph would be beneficial, and last December, FMCSA and NHTSA promised to consider public input before setting the actual number. The speed limit would be managed by a governing device and would apply to all newly-manufactured vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating more than 26,000 lbs.

“We believe this rule would have minimal cost, as all heavy trucks already have these devices installed, although some vehicles do not have the limit set,” according to DOT. “This rule would decrease the estimated 1,115 fatal crashes annually involving vehicles with a GVWR of over 11,793.4 kg (26,000 lbs) on roads with posted speed limits of 55 mph or above.” 

In December, the DOT asked for public input to determine the speed setting in the proposed mandate. At the time, the American Trucking Assns., which had petitioned the government to come up with a mandate, said it supports a national speed limit of 65 mph for all vehicles and tamperproof speed limiters for all heavy-duty trucks made after 1992. However, ATA pointed out the rule’s shortcomings:

• The rule calls for speed limiters to be required only on new vehicles and would not require tamper proofing.

• The lack of a national speed limit would result in “wide divergences” in speed between trucks and other traffic.

• The agencies propose three speed options with “insufficient evidence” to justify a particular choice.

[kscarbel2]

Will a last-ditch move to delay the ELD mandate succeed?

Sean Kilcarr, Fleet Owner  /  July 25, 2017

The recent legislative effort to delay the impending electronic logging device (ELD) mandate this December may actually be on firmer ground than many might expect for a simple reason: the agency in charge of overseeing the mandate, namely the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), may not be ready to enforce it.

This time last year, for example, agency personnel readily admitted they weren’t ready to handle electronic transmission of hours of service (HOS) data captured by ELDs – though they still fully expected to the rule to go into effect by this December, leaving roadside inspectors to use “other methods” to ensure ELD compliance.

[That doesn’t speak highly of FMCSA’s technical prowess; something the Government Accountability Office noted in a recent report as well.]

Yet this “lack of readiness” may very well give a controversial bill introduced by U.S. Representative Brian Babin (TX-36) last week some legislative legs in the halls of Congress; a bill that seeks to delay implementation of the ELD mandate for two years ostensibly due to the “burden” smaller motor carriers face to comply with it.

The Bill – H.R. 3282, the ELD Extension Act of 2017 – would provide for an additional two year delay before mandatory implementation of ELDs on all U.S. freight-hauling trucks scheduled for December 18 this year.

“While technology like ELDs have great promise, I didn’t come to Washington to force those ideas on small businesses – and neither did President Trump” said Rep. Babin in a statement.

“If trucking companies want to continue implementing and using ELDs, they should go right ahead,” he added. “But for those who don’t want the burden, expense and uncertainty of putting one of these devices into every truck they own by the end of the year, we can and should offer relief.”

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) is squarely behind the measure, specifically taking aim at the enforcement side of the ELD equation. “There are too many unanswered questions about the technical specifications and enforcement guidelines of the mandate, warranting a delay,” noted Todd Spencer, the group’s vice president, in a statement.

“The [FMCSA] agency has failed to answer important questions from Congress and industry stakeholders about this mandate,” he stressed. “This includes issues related to enforcement, connectivity, data transfers, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and many other legitimate real world concerns,” said Spencer.

He added that FMCSA itself “refuses to certify any ELD as compliant with the rule, thus leaving consumers with no idea if a device they purchase is indeed compliant.”

And while FMCSA does maintain a list of “registered ELDs,” it is up the providers on that list self-certify their products; the agency itself is not involved in that certification process. That’s bugged many within the industry for a while, especially since, if something goes wrong, the burden of setting things right falls largely back upon the motor carrier.

Yet other trucking trade groups – notably the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and Truckload Carriers Association (TCA) – are none-too-pleased with this “last ditch” effort to delay the ELD mandate.

And they have a point, too, as fleets that spent a lot of time and money implementation ELDs want a “level playing” field in terms of HOS compliance.

“The use of an ELD will enable the industry to be transparent when complying with HOS regulations and is essential to the continuation of efficient business operations,” stressed David Heller, TCA’s vice president of government affairs.

“The industry stands ready and is prepared to implement ELDs,” noted Bill Sullivan, ATA’s executive vice president of advocacy, in a statement.

“It is incumbent on regulators and on Congress to dismiss this last-ditch try by some to evade critically important safety laws,” he added. “Supporters of a delay are attempting to accomplish, almost at the 11th hour, what they’ve been unable to do in the courts, Congress or with the agency: roll back this common sense, data-supported regulation based on at best specious and at worst outright dishonest arguments.”

ATA sent a letter late last week to the FMCSA detailing why this delay-by-legislation effort is a bad idea. But perhaps the most pertinent reason why ELDs are most likely an inevitable development is that in the digital age, it seems unreasonable to rely on paper documentation for HOS data.

“It is using more accurate, easier to access and most importantly, more difficult to falsify, 21st Century technology to demonstrate compliance with the HOS rather than an easy-to-falsify, error prone and 18th Century technology of a paper and pencil,” said Sullivan.

For that and other reasons [a good blog post by my colleague Neil Abt puts some of them into perspective] the chance of a delay to the ELD rule via Congressional legislation are pretty slim.

Yet the chance remains. We’ll just have to see how Rep. Babin’s bill fares when it comes up for a vote.

.

[kscarbel2]

Senate bill would require DOT to finalize speed limiter mandate

Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  July 1, 2019

A bill introduced late last week in the U.S. Senate would require the U.S. Department of Transportation to resume work on a rule to require heavy-duty trucks to be equipped with speed limiters and require a limited speed of 65 mph.

Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Georgia Republican, filed the legislation June 27 into the Senate’s Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. It would require all new trucks to be equipped with speed limiters set at 65 mph, as well as existing trucks with speed limiting capabilities to have the same cap.

Due to Executive Orders signed by President Trump in his first days in office, DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration tabled a rulemaking that sought to institute a speed limiter mandate. The agency was scheduled to publish a proposed rule in September 2017, but has since moved the rulemaking to a long-term agenda item.

Isakson’s bill likely won’t gain the traction it needs to prevail in Congress, though he could try to attach it to a larger transportation bill, such as an annual DOT appropriations bill or a highway authorization bill.