[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78-80]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33057]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-26851]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Engine Control Module 
Speed Limiter Device

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice grants two separate but similar petitions for 
rulemaking, one submitted by the American Trucking Associations and the 
other submitted by Road Safe America and a group of nine motor carriers 
(Schneider National, Inc., C.R. England, Inc., H.O. Wolding, Inc., ATS 
Intermodal, LLC, DART Transit Company, J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., U.S. 
Xpress, Inc., Covenant Transport, Inc., and Jet Express, Inc.) to 
establish a safety standard to require devices that would limit the 
speed of certain heavy trucks. Based on information received in 
response to a request for comments,\1\ the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration believes that these petitions merit further 
consideration through the agency's rulemaking process. In addition, 
because of the overlapping issues addressed in these two petitions, the 
agency will address them together in a single rulemaking activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 72 FR 3904; January 26, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plans to 
initiate the rulemaking process on this issue with a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking in 2012. The determination of whether to issue a rule will 
be made in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with 
statutory criteria.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 
Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202-366-0098; 
FAX: 202-366-7002). For legal issues, you may call Mr. Steve Wood, 
Assistant Chief Counsel for Vehicle Rulemaking and Harmonization, 
(Phone: 202-366-2992; FAX: 202-366-3820). You may send mail to this 
official at: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 20, 2006, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) 
submitted a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) requesting that the agency initiate rulemaking 
to amend the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to require vehicle 
manufacturers to install a device to limit the speed of trucks with a 
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 26,000 pounds to no 
more than 68 miles per hour (mph). The ATA claimed that reducing speed-
related crashes involving trucks is critical to the safety mission of 
NHTSA, and that these new requirements are needed to reduce the number 
and severity of crashes involving large trucks.
    On September 8, 2006, Road Safe America and a group of nine motor 
carriers also petitioned the agency to require that manufacturers 
install a speed limiting device in vehicles with a GVWR over 26,000 
pounds and that the devices be set at not more than 68 mph. They also 
requested that the requirements apply to all trucks manufactured after 
1990.

Summary of the Petitions

    A detailed discussion of the two petitions can be found in the 
request for comments notice. Items specific to NHTSA include the 
following requests from ATA:
    1. All newly manufactured trucks with a GVWR greater than 26,000 
pounds shall be equipped with an electronic control module (ECM) that 
is capable of limiting the maximum speed of the vehicle.
    2. The ECM shall be set at no more than 68 mph by the manufacturer.
    3. The ECM should be tamper-resistant, and should be designed in a 
way that does not allow the speed limiter setting on the ECM to be 
adjusted to let the vehicle exceed 68 mph.
    4. Immediately upon the rule taking effect, manufacturers should be 
prohibited from setting the ECM speed limiter to a maximum speed of 
greater than 68 mph. However, this requirement should not take effect 
earlier than the effective date of a Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA) rule prohibiting vehicle owners or operators 
from setting the ECM speed limiter at a level greater than 68 mph for 
newly manufactured trucks.
    5. The effective date for installation of a tamper-resistant ECM 
should be established with a period of time that will allow 
manufacturers to undergo a systems integration process. The change to 
the engine ECM may affect other devices on the vehicle; therefore, 
manufacturers need some time to ensure that the vehicle functions 
properly. ATA encourages NHTSA to seek information from manufacturers 
to determine the length of time necessary to come into compliance with 
the rule.
    6. An appropriate tolerance to accommodate variations in 
manufacturing, wear, and maintenance throughout the lifecycle of the 
vehicle. For example, the same diameter heavy truck tire but with a 
different width and sidewall aspect ratio may have a 15-20 revolutions 
per mile difference which will affect the actual top speed of the truck 
with a governed speed of 68 mph. ATA recommends that any rulemaking 
pertaining to this petition reference SAE J678, J862, and J1226 
Recommended Practices.

In addition to items similar to those in ATA's petition, Road Safe 
America also included an item on retrofitting in its petition:

    1. Every class 7 and class 8 commercial motor vehicle manufactured 
after the year 1990 shall be equipped with an electronic engine speed 
governor.

Summary of Comments

    On January 26, 2007, NHTSA and FMCSA published a joint Request for 
Comments Notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comments on

[[Page 79]]

the ATA and Road Safe America petitions. The Department of 
Transportation Docket Management System received approximately 3,850 
comments into Docket No. NHTSA-2007-26851, the majority of which were 
submitted by private citizens. Of these, many comments supported a 
regulation that would limit the speed of large trucks to 68 mph, which 
included comments from trucking fleets and consumer advocacy groups, 
and others. Other comments submitted by independent owner-operator 
truckers, a trucking fleet association, and private citizens were 
opposed to the rulemaking requested in the petitions. The remaining 
comments did not explicitly indicate a position with regard to the 
petitions.
    Comments from private citizens supporting the petitions include 
responses from individuals who were involved in crashes with heavy 
trucks or had friends/relatives who were involved in crashes with large 
trucks. The private citizen supporters of the petitions are typically 
non-truck drivers who stated that they are intimidated by the hazardous 
driving practices of some truck drivers, such as speeding, tailgating, 
and abrupt lane changes. These commenters expressed the belief that 
limiting the speed of heavy trucks to 68 mph will result in safer 
highways.
    Some of the organizations supporting the petition provided similar 
reasons for their support and the selected comments summarized below 
cover the range of issues they discussed.
    Schneider National, Inc., a major trucking fleet, indicated that 
its trucks have been speed limited to 65 mph since 1996. According to 
Schneider's crash data from its own fleet, vehicles without speed 
limiters accounted for 40 percent of the company's serious collisions 
while driving 17 percent of the company's total miles. Schneider stated 
that its vehicles have a significantly lower crash rate than large 
trucks that are not speed limited or have a maximum speed setting 
greater than 65 mph.
    J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., another trucking fleet, commented that a 
differential speed between cars and large trucks will result from 
trucks being equipped with speed limiters set below the posted speed 
limit. This speed differential may cause a safety hazard. However, J. 
B. Hunt believes that the current safety hazard caused by large trucks 
traveling at speeds in excess of posted limits is a greater safety 
hazard.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) commented that 
large trucks require 20-40 percent more braking distance than passenger 
cars and light trucks for a given travel speed. Advocates does not 
believe that the data in the 1991 report to Congress \2\ are still 
valid because the speed limits posted by the States over the past ten 
years are much higher than the national posted speed limit of 55 mph 
that was in effect in 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Comercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices (1991), DOT HS 
807 725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) stated that 97 
percent of the occupants that are killed in crashes between heavy 
trucks and passenger vehicles are passenger vehicle occupants. IIHS 
stated that on-board electronic engine control modules (ECM) will 
maintain the desired speed control for vehicles when enforcement 
efforts are not sufficient due to lack of resources. IIHS stated that 
there is already widespread use of speed governors by carriers and a 
mandate will result in net safety and economic benefits.
    The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) stated that large 
trucks are 3 percent of registered vehicles and represent about 8 
percent of the total miles traveled nationwide. Also, GHSA believes 
that it is prudent to consider speed limiting devices since they are 
currently installed in large trucks and can be adapted to be tamper-
resistant. It stated that conventional approaches to vehicle speed 
control do not provide optimal benefits because of a lack of 
enforcement resources and too many miles of highway to cover.
    Several comments, including those from ATA's Truck Maintenance 
Council, provided information concerning economic, non-safety benefits 
that would result from large truck speed limiters. The Truck 
Maintenance Council stated that an increase of 1 mph results in a 0.1 
mpg increase in fuel consumption, and for every 1 mph increase in speed 
over 55 mph, there is a reduction of 1 percent in tire tread life.
    Comments opposing rulemaking that would require speed limiters on 
large trucks to be set to a maximum speed of 68 mph were received from 
many independent truck drivers, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 
Association (OOIDA), the Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), and 
private citizens (non-truck drivers).
    OOIDA commented that the 1991 report to Congress \3\ is still valid 
today--there is no need to mandate speed limiters because the target 
population (high speed crashes) is still small compared to the total 
number of truck crashes. According to OOIDA, speed limiters would not 
have an effect on crashes in areas where the posted speed limit for 
trucks is 65 mph or below. OOIDA believes that the petitioners are 
attempting to force all trucks to be speed limited so that the major 
trucking companies with speed limited vehicles can compete for drivers 
with the independent trucking operations that have not limited their 
speeds to 68 mph or below. OOIDA also stated that it is not necessary 
to set large truck speed limiters at 68 mph to realize most of the 
economic benefits cited by the petitioners because improved fuel 
economy and reduced emissions can be achieved with improved truck 
designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Comercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices (1991), DOT HS 
807 725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TCA commented that a speed differential will be created in many 
States by the 68-mph speed limit for heavy trucks and a higher speed 
limit for other vehicles. This speed differential will result in more 
interaction between cars and trucks and may be an additional safety 
risk for cars and trucks.
    According to comments from CDW Transport, a trucking fleet, speed 
limiters should be required on passenger vehicles as well as commercial 
motor vehicles.
    Several comments from private citizens and small businesses opposed 
to the petitions stated that speed is not the only cause of crashes, 
that weather and highway conditions are also significant factors. There 
were comments stating that passenger vehicles cause the majority of the 
crashes between trucks and passenger vehicles. Some comments stated 
that truck drivers will experience more fatigue with a 68-mph maximum 
speed, which could result in more crashes; some comments expressed the 
opinion that State and local law enforcement agencies should enforce 
the speed of all vehicles on the nation's roads and highways; several 
comments favored a 75-mph limit for truck speed limiters, instead of 68 
mph, to match the highest posted speed limit in the country.
    The Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA) provided information 
concerning the cost of tamper-proof speed limiters for large trucks. 
TMA estimates a one-time cost of $35 to $50 million would be required 
to develop ECMs with tamper-resistant speed limiters and a one-time 
cost of $150 million to $200 million to develop ECMs with tamper-proof 
speed limiters. With both of these ECM designs, there would be 
additional costs to make adjustments to the ECM for maximum speed, tire 
size, and drive axle and transmission gear ratio information.

[[Page 80]]

Research Review

    The agency conducted a preliminary review of research in its 
evaluation of the merits of these petitions. Along with research 
conducted by Transport Canada, \4\ the agency has considered a DOT 
Research and Special Programs Administration report published in 2005, 
\5\ and a synthesis of safety practice from the Transportation Research 
Board of the National Academies published in 2008.\6\ Both of these 
reports indicate that there is a potential for speed limiting devices 
to decrease crash severity. Both of these documents also contain survey 
information pertaining to the current fleet usage of these devices and 
the speed settings of the equipment currently on the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The reports are available at http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safevehicles-motorcarriers-speedlimiter-index-251.htm.
    \5\ ``Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile Speed 
Limits Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways,'' MBTC 2048.
    \6\ ``Safety Impacts of Speed Limiter Device Installation on 
Commercial Trucks and Buses,'' Available at http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the currently available studies have been useful in the 
agency's grant consideration, additional information on this topic is 
forthcoming. The agency anticipates the publication of a report on the 
findings of a study being conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration.\7\ The main objective of this research is to 
quantitatively evaluate the safety impact and associated economic 
benefits of speed limiters in commercial motor vehicles. This analysis 
is expected to include safety impacts as well as fuel and tire 
consumption data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Information on this study is available at  http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/art-research-Safety-Effectiveness-of-Speed-Limiters.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Speed Limiter Regulations

    The European Union has limited the speed of large trucks and buses 
under its jurisdiction to 62 mph since 1994. In Australia, large trucks 
have been limited to 62 mph since 1990 with a 56-mph limit for road 
trains (a road train consists of a tractor pulling multiple 
trailers).\8\ The European Union and Australia cited economic and 
safety benefits as the reasons for adopting large truck speed limiter 
legislation and regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Australian Design Rule (ADR) 65/00--Maximum Road Speed 
Limiting for Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Omnibuses specifies the 
devices or systems used to limit the maximum road speed of heavy 
goods vehicles. For additional information, go to http://
www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/7ebc7a9d-b94b-4ee8-bf82-aab41c743252/
speed--limiter--requirements.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More recently, Japan and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and 
Quebec have also mandated speed limiters. Japan limited large trucks to 
56 mph in 2003. Quebec and Ontario limited the speed of large trucks to 
65 effective January 1, 2009, although they did not begin assessing 
fines until July 1, 2009.\9\ In addition to economic and safety 
benefits, the two provinces cited environmental benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ONTARIO AND QU[Eacute]BEC MANDATORY HEAVY TRUCK SPEED 
LIMITERS--FACT SHEET. Available at http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/Librairie/Publications/en/camionnage/limiteurs_vitesse/speed_limiters_note_info.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The granting of the petitions from ATA and Road Safe America, 
however, does not mean that a final rule will be issued. The 
determination of whether to issue a rule is made after study of the 
requested action and the various alternatives in the course of the 
rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued: December 27, 2010.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards.
[FR Doc. 2010-33057 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P