Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Speed Limiting Devices, 61941-61972 [2016-20934]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 81
Wednesday,
No. 173
September 7, 2016
Part IV
Department of Transportation
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 393
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Speed
Limiting Devices; Proposed Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
61942
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0087]
RIN 2127–AK92
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 393
[Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0083]
RIN–2126–AB63
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations; Parts and
Accessories Necessary for Safe
Operation; Speed Limiting Devices
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) and
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
NHTSA and FMCSA are
proposing regulations that would
require vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of more than 11,793.4
kilograms (26,000 pounds) to be
equipped with a speed limiting device
initially set to a speed no greater than
a speed to be specified in a final rule
and would require motor carriers
operating such vehicles in interstate
commerce to maintain functional speed
limiting devices set to a speed no greater
than a speed to be specified in the final
rule for the service life of the vehicle.
Specifically, NHTSA is proposing to
establish a new Federal motor vehicle
safety standard (FMVSS) requiring that
each new multipurpose passenger
vehicle, truck, bus and school bus with
a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000
pounds) be equipped with a speed
limiting device. The proposed FMVSS
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 On-Board Diagnostic connection.
FMCSA is proposing a
complementary Federal motor carrier
safety regulation (FMCSR) requiring
each commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
with a GVWR of more than 11,793.4
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
kilograms (26,000 pounds) to 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. Motor carriers
operating such vehicles in interstate
commerce would be required to
maintain the speed limiting devices for
the service life of the vehicle.
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.
DATES: You should submit your
comments early enough to ensure that
the docket receives them not later than
November 7, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by one or both of the docket
numbers in the heading of this
document, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001
• Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., 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.
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the Public Participation heading of
the Supplementary Information section
of this document. Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78) or you may visit http://
www.regulations.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to http://
www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
NHTSA: For technical issues, you
may contact Mr. Markus Price, Office of
Vehicle Rulemaking, Telephone: (202)
366–1810. Facsimile: (202) 366–7002.
For legal issues, you may contact Mr.
David Jasinski, Office of Chief Counsel,
Telephone (202) 366–2992. Facsimile:
(202) 366–3820. You may send mail to
these officials at: The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration,
Attention: NVS–010, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590.
FMCSA: For technical issues, you may
contact Mr. Michael Huntley, Vehicle
and Roadside Operations, Telephone
(202) 366–5370. Facsimile: (202) 366–
8842. For legal issues, you may contact
Mr. Charles Medalen, Office of Chief
Counsel, Telephone (202) 366–1354.
Facsimile: (202) 366–3602. You may
send mail to these officials at: The
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Attention: MC–PSV,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Legal Basis
III. Background
A. Speed Limiting Technology
B. NHTSA’s 1991 Report to Congress on
CMV Speed Control Devices
C. Petitions for Rulemaking
1. American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Petition
2. Road Safe America Petition
D. Request for Comment
E. NHTSA Notice Granting Petitions
F. FMCSA Research—Speed Limiting
Device Installation on CMVs
IV. Heavy Vehicle Speed Related Safety
Problem
A. Heavy Vehicle Crashes at High Speeds
B. NTSB Motorcoach Speed-Related Crash
Investigation
V. Applicability of NHTSA’s 1991 Report to
Congress on CMV Speed Control Devices
VI. Comparative Regulatory Requirements
A. Canada
B. Australia
C. Europe
D. Japan
VII. Proposed Requirements
A. Overview
1. Proposed FMVSS
2. Proposed FMCSR
B. Applicability
1. Proposed FMVSS
2. Proposed FMCSR
C. Proposed FMVSS Requirements
1. Definitions
2. Set Speed
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Tampering and Modification of the
Speed-Limiting Device
4. Test Procedure and Performance
Requirements
D. Proposed FMCSR Requirements
1. Enforcement
VIII. Regulatory Alternatives
A. Other Technologies Limiting Speed
B. Tampering
C. Test Procedures
D. Electromagnetic Interference
IX. Other Issues
A. Retrofitting
B. Lead Time
X. Overview of Benefits and Costs
A. Benefits
1. Safety Benefits
2. Fuel Saving Benefits
B. Costs
1. Heavy Vehicle Manufacturers
2. Societal Costs Associated with the
Operation of Heavy Vehicles
3. Impacts on Small Trucking and
Motorcoach Businesses
C. Net Impact
XI. Public Participation
XII. Rulemaking Analyses
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
E. Executive Order 13609 (Promoting
International Regulatory Cooperation)
F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
G. Executive Order 12372
(Intergovernmental Review)
H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments)
I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
K. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
M. National Environmental Policy Act
N. Environmental Justice
O. Paperwork Reduction Act
P. Plain Language
Q. Privacy Impact Assessment
R. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
I. Executive Summary
Studies examining the relationship
between travel speed and crash severity
have confirmed the common-sense
conclusion that the severity of a crash
increases with increased travel speed.1
Impact force during a crash is related to
vehicle speed, and even small increases
in speed have large effects on the force
of impact. As speed increases, so does
the amount of kinetic energy a vehicle
has. Because the kinetic energy equation
has a velocity-squared term, the kinetic
1 See, e.g., Johnson, Steven L. & Pawar, Naveen,
Mack-Blackwell Rural Transportation Center,
College of Engineering, University of Arkansas,
Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile
Speed Limits Differentials on Rural Interstate
Highways, MBTC 2048 (Nov. 2005).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
energy increase is exponential
compared to the speed increase, so that
even small increases in speed have large
effects on kinetic energy. For example,
a 5 mph speed increase from 30 mph to
35 mph increases the kinetic energy by
one-third.2 The effect is particularly
relevant for combination trucks (i.e.,
truck tractor and trailer) due to their
large mass.3 Additionally, higher speeds
extend the distance necessary to stop a
vehicle and reduce the ability of the
vehicle, restraint device, and roadway
hardware such as guardrails, barriers,
and impact attenuators to protect
vehicle occupants in the event of a
crash.4
All vehicles with electronic engine
control units (ECUs) are generally
electronically speed governed to prevent
engine or other damage to the vehicle.
This is because the ECU monitors an
engine’s RPM (from which vehicle
speed can be calculated) and also
controls the supply of fuel to the engine.
The information NHTSA has analyzed
indicates that ECUs have been installed
in most heavy trucks since 1999,
although we are aware that some
manufacturers were still installing
mechanical controls through 2003. We
seek comment on when ECUs with
speed limiting capabilities became
widely used for the other heavy vehicles
covered by this proposal, such as buses
and school buses.
The Department of Transportation has
previously examined the issue of
mandatory speed limitation for CMVs.
In 1991, NHTSA published a report
titled ‘‘Commercial Motor Vehicle
Speed Control Devices,’’ 5 in response to
the Truck and Bus Safety and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1988.6 This
report reviewed the problem of heavy
vehicles traveling at speeds greater than
65 mph and these vehicles’ involvement
in ‘‘speeding-related’’ crashes.7 At that
time, the report found that combination
trucks tended to travel at just over the
posted speed limit. The report was
2 Virginia Commonwealth University Safety
Training Center Web site, http://www.vcu.edu/
cppweb/tstc/crashinvestigation/kinetic.html.
3 Johnson, Steven L. & Pawar, Naveen, MackBlackwell Rural Transportation Center, Cost-Benefit
Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile Speed Limits
Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways, MBTC
2048 (Nov. 2005).
4 Liu Cejun & Chen, Chou-Lin, NHTSA, An
Analysis of Speeding-Related Crashes: Definitions
and the Effects of Road Environments, DOT HS 811
090 (Feb. 2009).
5 NHTSA, Commercial Motor Vehicle Speed
Control Devices, DOT HS 807 725 (May 1991).
6 Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform
Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, 102 Stat. 4527 (Nov.
18, 1988).
7 For the purposes of the report, a vehicle was
considered to be ‘‘speeding’’ if its estimated travel
speed exceeded the posted speed limit.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61943
supportive of fleet applications of speed
monitoring and speed limiting devices,
but concluded that, because of the small
target population size as compared to
the overall size of the population, there
was not sufficient justification to require
the application of speed limiting
devices at that time.
Several factors have changed since the
submission of the 1991 report, including
the data on the target population,
changes in the costs and technology of
speed limiting devices, and the repeal of
the national maximum speed limit law.
These changes undermine the
conclusions contained in the 1991
report and support our reexamination of
this safety issue.
In 2006, NHTSA received a petition
from the American Trucking
Associations (ATA) to initiate a
rulemaking to amend the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to
require vehicle manufacturers 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). Concurrently, the ATA
petitioned the FMCSA to amend the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSR) to prohibit owners
and operators from adjusting the speed
limiting devices in affected vehicles
above 68 mph. That same year, FMCSA
received a petition from Road Safe
America to initiate a rulemaking to
amend the FMCSRs to require that all
trucks manufactured after 1990 with a
GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds be
equipped with electronic speed limiting
devices set at not more than 68 mph.
On January 26, 2007, NHTSA and
FMCSA responded to these petitions in
a joint Request for Comments notice in
the Federal Register, seeking public
comments on the petitions.8 On January
3, 2011, NHTSA published a notice
granting the petitions for rulemaking
and announced that the agency would
initiate the rulemaking process with an
NPRM.9
Using Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) and National
Automotive Sampling System General
Estimates System (NASS GES) crash
data over the 10-year period between
2004 and 2013, the agencies examined
crashes involving heavy vehicles (i.e.,
vehicles with a GVWR of over 11,793.4
kg (26,000 pounds)) on roads with
posted speed limits of 55 mph or above.
The agency focused on crashes in which
the speed of the heavy vehicle likely
contributed to the severity of the crash
(e.g., single vehicle crashes, crashes in
which the heavy vehicle was the
8 72
9 76
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
FR 3904 (Jan. 26, 2007).
FR 78 (Jan. 3, 2011).
07SEP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61944
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
striking vehicle). The agencies estimated
that these crashes resulted in 10,440
fatalities 10 from 2004 to 2013. On an
annual basis, the fatalities averaged
approximately 1,044 during this period.
The agencies’ analysis found that
crashes involving heavy vehicles
traveling faster are more deadly than
crashes involving heavy vehicles
traveling at lower speeds. Given this
fact, NHTSA is proposing to require
multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, buses and school buses, with a
GVWR of more than 11,793.4 kilograms
(26,000 pounds) to be equipped with a
speed limiting device. As manufactured
and sold, each of these vehicles would
be required by NHTSA to have its
device set to a speed not greater than a
specified speed. NHTSA is proposing a
lead time of three years from
publication of a final rule for
manufacturers to meet the proposed
requirements.
FMCSA is proposing a
complementary Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulation (FMCSR) requiring
multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses and school buses with
a GVWR of more than 11,793.4
kilograms (26,000 pounds) operating in
interstate commerce to 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 the specified
speed. Motor carriers operating such
vehicles in interstate commerce would
be required to maintain the speed
limiting devices for the service life of
the vehicle.
Vehicles with GVWRs above 26,000
pounds include multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses and school
buses and will be referred to as heavy
vehicles within this notice. The purpose
of this joint rulemaking is to reduce the
severity of crashes involving these
heavy vehicles and to reduce the
number of resulting fatalities.
Since this NPRM would apply both to
vehicle manufacturers and motor
carriers that purchase and operate these
vehicles, this joint rulemaking is based
on the authority of both NHTSA and
FMCSA.
NHTSA’s legal authority for today’s
NPRM is the National Traffic and Motor
10 The fatality numbers were also adjusted to
reflect the effect of new heavy vehicle requirements
that have been adopted by NHTSA within the last
several years (e.g., the final rule adopting seat belt
requirements for passenger seats in buses (78 FR
70415 (Nov. 25, 2013), the final rule to adopt
electronic stability control requirements for heavy
vehicles (80 FR 36049 (June 23, 2015)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Vehicle Safety Act (‘‘Motor Vehicle
Safety Act’’).
FMCSA’s portion of this NPRM is
based on the authority of the Motor
Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) and the
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984
Act), both as amended. The two acts are
delegated to FMCSA by 49 CFR 1.87(i)
and (f), respectively.
These legal authorities and the legal
basis for the proposed FMCSR are
discussed in more detail in Section II of
this notice.
NHTSA is proposing that speed
limiting device requirements apply to
all multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks and buses with a GVWR of more
than 11,793.4 kg (26,000 pounds).
NHTSA considered several factors in
determining the GVWR threshold for the
proposed FMVSS. These vehicles carry
the heaviest loads, and small increases
in their speed have larger effects on the
force of impact in a crash. Additionally,
many of these vehicles are regulated by
FMCSA and its State partners,
permitting the establishment of an
FMCSR to ensure the enforcement of the
speed limiting requirements throughout
the life of the vehicles.
Although the petitions for rulemaking
requested that NHTSA permit
manufacturers to set the speed limiting
device at any speed up to and including
68 mph, the agency has not proposed a
specific set speed. In Section X of this
document and in the Preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis, Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and
Draft Environmental Assessment
accompanying this proposal, NHTSA
has considered the benefits and costs of
60 mph, 65 mph, and 68 mph maximum
set speeds.
The agencies estimate that limiting
the speed of heavy vehicles to 60 mph
would save 162 to 498 lives annually,
limiting the speed of heavy vehicles to
65 mph would save 63 to 214 lives
annually, and limiting the speed of
heavy vehicles to 68 mph would save 27
to 96 lives annually. Although we
believe that the 60 mph alternative
would result in additional safety
benefits, we are not able to quantify the
60 mph alternative with the same
confidence as the 65 mph and 68 mph
alternatives.
To determine compliance with the
operational requirements for the speed
limiting device (i.e., that the vehicle is
in fact limited to the set speed), NHTSA
is proposing a vehicle-level test that
involves accelerating the vehicle and
monitoring the vehicle’s speed. The
proposed test procedure is substantially
based on the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE)
regulation on vehicle speed limiting
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
devices,11 with several modifications
discussed in detail later in this
document.
In order to reduce additional potential
costs to vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA
is not proposing requirements to
prevent tampering or restrict adjusting
the speed setting as part of the proposed
FMVSS. Instead, to deter tampering
with a vehicle’s speed limiting device or
modification of the set speed above the
specified maximum set speed after the
vehicle is sold, the proposed FMVSS
would be reinforced by the proposed
FMCSR, which would require motor
carriers to maintain the speed limiting
devices at a set speed within the range
permitted by the FMVSS. To assist
FMCSA’s enforcement officials with
post-installation inspections and
investigations to ensure compliance
with the requirement to maintain the
speed limiters, NHTSA is proposing to
require that the vehicle set speed and
the speed determination parameters be
readable through the On-Board
Diagnostic (OBD) connection.12 In
addition to the current speed limiter
settings, NHTSA is proposing that the
previous two setting modifications (i.e.,
the two most recent modifications of the
set speed of the speed limiting device
and the two most recent modifications
of the speed determination parameters)
be readable and include the time and
date of the modifications.
In addition to the new vehicle
requirements included in this proposal,
NHTSA is considering whether to
require commercial vehicles with a
GVWR of more than 26,000 pounds
currently on the road to be retrofitted
with a speed limiting device with the
speed set to no more than a specified
speed. The agency has not included a
retrofit requirement in this proposal
because of concerns about the technical
feasibility, cost, enforcement, and small
business impacts of such a requirement.
However, we are seeking public
comment to improve our understanding
of the real-world impact of
implementing a speed limiting device
retrofit requirement. As an alternative to
a retrofit requirement, the agencies are
also requesting comment on whether to
extend the set speed requirement only
11 UNECE R89, Uniform provisions concerning
the approval of: I. Vehicles with regard to limitation
of their maximum speed or their adjustable speed
limitation function; II. Vehicles with regard to the
installation of a speed limiting device (SLD) or
adjustable speed limitation device (ASLD) of an
approved type; III. Speed limitation devices (SLD)
and adjustable speed limitation device (ASLD),’’ E/
ECE/324–E/ECE/TRANS/505//Rev. 1/Add. 88/
Amend. 2 (January 30, 2011).
12 Further information on the specification of the
OBD connection is available at http://www.epa.gov/
obd/regtech/heavy.htm.
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
61945
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
to all CMVs with a GVWR of more than
26,000 pounds that are already
equipped with a speed limiting device.
Based on our review of the available
data, limiting the speed of heavy
vehicles would reduce the severity of
crashes involving these vehicles and
reduce the resulting fatalities and
injuries. Because virtually all heavy
vehicles are CMVs and would be subject
to both the proposed FMVSS and the
proposed FMCSR, we expect that, as a
result of this joint rulemaking, virtually
all heavy vehicles would be speed
limited.
The agencies project that this joint
rulemaking would be cost-beneficial.
Specifically, by reducing the severity of
crashes involving heavy vehicles, we
estimate that limiting heavy vehicles to
68 mph would save 27 to 96 lives
annually, limiting heavy vehicles to 65
mph would save 63 to 214 lives
annually, and limiting heavy vehicles to
60 mph would save 162 to 498 lives
annually.13 Based on range of fatalities
prevented, this rulemaking would
prevent 179 to 551 serious injuries 14
and 3,356 to 10,306 minor injuries with
a maximum set speed of 60 mph, 70 to
236 serious injuries and 1,299 to 4,535
minor injuries with a maximum set
percent discount rate, as a result of the
potentially lower travel speeds and
delay in the delivery of goods. However,
the estimated fuel savings benefits of
this proposed rule exceed these
estimated societal costs.
The commercial trucking market fits
the classic definition of a negative
externality, in which benefits are
enjoyed by one party, but the costs
associated with that benefit are imposed
on another. In this case, higher travel
speeds may produce more severe traffic
crashes that result in more death, more
injury, and greater property damage.
While the cost of excess fuel
consumption is borne by the vehicle
fleet operators, the resulting fatalities,
greenhouse gases, and pollutants may be
imposed on society. The agencies
estimate that this rule would be costbeneficial. Even assuming that the
proposed rule would result in the high
cost estimate and the low benefit
estimate, the net benefits of this
rulemaking are estimated to be $1.1
billion to $5.0 billion annually for 60
mph speed limiters, $1.0 billion to $2.8
billion annually for 65 mph speed
limiters, and $0.5 to $1.3 billion
annually for 68 mph speed limiters,
assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
speed of 65 mph, and 30 to 106 serious
injuries and 560 to 1,987 minor injuries
with a maximum set speed of 68 mph.
Additionally, we project that this joint
rulemaking would result in fuel savings
and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
reductions totaling of $848 million
annually, assuming a 7 percent discount
for fuel and a 3 percent discount rate for
GHG, for 60 mph and 65 mph speed
limiter settings.15 For 68 mph speed
limiters, we would expect fuel savings
and GHG emissions reductions to result
in benefits of $376 million annually.
The cost of the proposed FMVSS to
vehicle manufacturers is expected to be
minimal. As discussed above, most
vehicles to which the proposed FMVSS
would apply are already equipped with
electronic engine controls which
include the capability to limit the speed
of the vehicle, but may not have these
controls turned on automatically.
In addition to the costs to vehicle
manufacturers, we have evaluated the
societal cost implications of these
proposed rules. We estimate that the
proposed rules would cost $1,561
million for 60 mph speed limiters, $523
million for 65 mph speed limiters, and
$209 million for 68 mph speed limiters
$433 million annually, assuming a 7
TABLE 1—ANNUAL TOTAL BENEFITS, 7% DISCOUNT
[In millions of 2013 dollars *]
60 mph
65 mph
68 mph
Benefits
Low estimate
High estimate
Low estimate
High estimate
Low estimate
High estimate
Combination Trucks .................................
Single-unit trucks .....................................
Buses .......................................................
$2,571
105
20
$6,134
230
159
$1,458
85
21
$3,074
128
79
$640
36
8
$1,384
53
32
Total ..................................................
2,695
6,522
1,564
3,281
684
1,469
* Numbers were rounded to the nearest integer.
TABLE 2—ANNUAL COSTS, 7% DISCOUNT ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED DELIVERY TIME
[In millions of 2013 dollars]
60 mph
65 mph
68 mph
$1,534
$514
$206
Cost ............................................................................................................................
TABLE 3—OVERALL NET BENEFITS TO HEAVY VEHICLE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATED WITH SPEED LIMITERS, 7% DISCOUNT
[In millions, 2013 dollars] *
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60 mph
65 mph
68 mph
Vehicle
Minimum
Total Benefits ...........................................
$2,695
13 Although we believe that the 60 mph
alternative would result in additional safety
benefits, we are not able to quantify the 60 mph
alternative with the same confidence as the 65 mph
and 68 mph alternatives.
14 The fatality-to-injury ratios for AIS 3, AIS 4,
and AIS 5 injuries coincidentally add up to 1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Maximum
Minimum
$6,522
$1,564
Accordingly, the number of serious injuries
prevented (AIS 3–5) is estimated to be equivalent
to the number of fatalities. Please consult the PRIA
for additional discussion on how the agencies
estimated the injuries prevented.
15 For internal consistency and because of the
way the social cost of carbon is estimated, the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Maximum
$3,281
Minimum
$684
Maximum
$1,469
annual benefits are discounted back to net present
value using the same discount rate as the social cost
of carbon estimate (3 percent) rather than 3 percent
and 7 percent. Please refer to Section X for
additional information.
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
61946
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—OVERALL NET BENEFITS TO HEAVY VEHICLE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATED WITH SPEED LIMITERS, 7% DISCOUNT—
Continued
[In millions, 2013 dollars] *
60 mph
65 mph
68 mph
Vehicle
Minimum
Total Costs ...............................................
Net Benefit ...............................................
1,561
1,136
Maximum
Minimum
1,561
4,964
Maximum
523
1,039
523
2,757
Minimum
209
475
Maximum
209
1,260
* The estimates may not add up precisely due to rounding.
The agencies seek comments and
suggestions on any alternative options
that would lower cost and maintain all
or most of the benefits of the proposal,
as well as information relative to a
phase-in of the proposed requirements
or alternatives to our proposed threeyear lead time for manufacturers to meet
the requirements of the new FMVSS.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Legal Basis
Since this NPRM would apply both to
vehicle manufacturers and motor
carriers that purchase and operate these
vehicles, this rulemaking is based on the
authority of both NHTSA and FMCSA.
NHTSA’s legal authority for today’s
NPRM is the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (‘‘Motor Vehicle
Safety Act’’). Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter
301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C.
30101 et seq.), the Secretary of
Transportation is responsible for
prescribing motor vehicle safety
standards that are practicable, meet the
need for motor vehicle safety, and are
stated in objective terms.16 ‘‘Motor
vehicle safety standard’’ means a
minimum performance standard for
motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment. When prescribing such
standards, the Secretary must consider
all relevant, available motor vehicle
safety information.17 The Secretary
must also consider whether a proposed
standard is reasonable, practicable, and
appropriate for the types of motor
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for
which it is prescribed and the extent to
which the standard will further the
statutory purpose of reducing traffic
accidents and associated deaths.18 The
responsibility for promulgation of
FMVSS is delegated to NHTSA. In
proposing to require that heavy vehicles
be equipped with speed limiting devices
and that these devices initially be set to
a speed not greater than a maximum
specified speed by the manufacturer, the
agency carefully considered these
statutory requirements.
16 49
17 49
U.S.C. 30111(a).
U.S.C. 30111(b).
18 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Mandating speed limiting devices in
heavy vehicles and requiring that those
devices be set at speeds not greater than
a maximum specified speed would meet
the need for motor vehicle safety by
reducing the severity of crashes
involving heavy vehicles and reducing
the number of fatalities and injuries that
result from such crashes. These safety
benefits are summarized above and
discussed in more detail below in
Section X. The proposed FMVSS would
be practicable because the vehicles that
would be subject to the requirements
already have speed-limiting capability.
The proposed FMVSS also contains
objective performance criteria for
evaluating the required speed limiting
device, including a vehicle test
procedure based on a United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) test procedure, specification of
the type of setting information that must
be retrievable (i.e., the current speed
setting and speed determination
parameters as well as the last two
modifications of each) and the means by
which such information must be
retrievable (i.e., through the OBD
connection). As described above,
NHTSA decided to focus on vehicles
with a GVWR above 26,000 pounds and
believes that the proposed requirements
are appropriate for these vehicles
because they carry the heaviest loads
and because small increases in their
speed have larger effects on the force of
impact in a crash. Additionally, these
vehicles are regulated by FMCSA and its
State partners, permitting the
establishment of an FMCSR to ensure
the enforcement of the speed limiting
requirements throughout the life of the
vehicles.
FMCSA’s portion of this NPRM is
based on the authority of the Motor
Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) and the
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984
Act), both as amended. The two acts are
delegated to FMCSA by 49 CFR 1.87(i)
and (f), respectively.
The 1935 Act authorizes the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to
‘‘prescribe requirements for — (1)
qualifications and maximum hours of
service of employees of, and safety of
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
operation and equipment of, a motor
carrier; and (2) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees
of, and standards of equipment of, a
motor private carrier, when needed to
promote safety of operations’’ [49 U.S.C.
31502(b)].
The 1984 Act confers on DOT
authority to regulate drivers, motor
carriers, and vehicle equipment. ‘‘At a
minimum, the regulations shall ensure
that—(1) commercial motor vehicles are
maintained, equipped, loaded, and
operated safely; (2) the responsibilities
imposed on operators of commercial
motor vehicles do not impair their
ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3)
the physical condition of operators of
commercial motor vehicles is adequate
to enable them to operate the vehicles
safely . . . ; and (4) the operation of
commercial motor vehicles does not
have a deleterious effect on the physical
condition of the operators’’ [49 U.S.C.
31136(a)(1)–(4)]. Sec. 32911 of the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP–21) [Pub. L. 112–
141, 126 Stat. 405, July 6, 2012] enacted
a fifth requirement, i.e., to ensure that
‘‘(5) an operator of a commercial motor
vehicle is not coerced by a motor
carrier, shipper, receiver, or
transportation intermediary to operate a
commercial motor vehicle in violation
of a regulation promulgated under this
section, or chapter 51 [Transportation of
Hazardous Material] or chapter 313
[Commercial Motor Vehicles Operators]
of this title’’ [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)].
The 1935 Act authorizes regulations
on the ‘‘safety of operations and
equipment’’ of a for-hire carrier and
‘‘standards of equipment’’ of a private
carrier, ‘‘when needed to promote
safety’’ [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)(1)–(2)].
Speed limiting devices constitute safety
equipment, as the preamble of this
proposed rule amply demonstrates, and
the 1935 Act therefore authorizes
FMCSA to require that such equipment
be maintained as long as the vehicle is
in service.
Because NHTSA is proposing to
require vehicle manufacturers to equip
every new multipurpose passenger
vehicle, truck, and bus with a gross
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more
than 11,739.4 kilograms (26,000
pounds), FMCSA proposes to require
motor carriers operating such vehicles
in interstate commerce to maintain
functional speed limiting devices set at
not more than the maximum specified
speed for the service life of the vehicle.
Two provisions of the 1984 Act are
immediately relevant. A speed limiting
device installed to improve safety must
be ‘‘maintained,’’ as required by
§ 31136(a)(1), to ensure that its benefits
are actually realized in normal
operations. Properly maintained speed
limiting devices will also ensure that
‘‘the responsibilities imposed on
operators of commercial motor vehicles
do not impair their ability to operate the
vehicles safely’’ [§ 31136(a)(2)] in the
sense that drivers cannot be ordered to
drive more than the maximum set
speed.
The proposed rule does not directly
address § 31136(a)(3), dealing with the
physical condition of the driver, or
§ 31136(a)(4), concerning the effect of
driving on the physical condition of
operators. However, the proposed rule
would significantly reduce the
consumption of diesel fuel (which is
used by most vehicles heavier than
26,000 pounds), with corresponding
reductions in exhaust emissions. The
effect on the health of drivers (and
others) from exposure to diesel exhaust
is difficult to estimate in the absence of
a dose/response curve, significant
changes in the chemical composition of
diesel fuel over the years, and the
presence of confounding factors like
smoking [see, ‘‘Hours of Service of
Drivers,’’ 70 FR 49978, 49983–49987,
August 25, 2005]. Nonetheless, reducing
the total volume of exhaust emissions
will likely have some beneficial effect
on the health of many individuals,
including drivers. This issue is
discussed further in the Draft
Environmental Assessment prepared for
this NPRM.
Finally, consistent with § 31136(a)(5),
a working speed limiting device will
make it more difficult for a ‘‘motor
carrier, shipper, receiver, or
transportation intermediary’’ to coerce a
driver to exceed highway speed limits
in violation of the regulatory
requirements of 49 CFR 392.2 and 392.6.
The 1984 Act confers jurisdiction over
‘‘commercial motor vehicles’’ (CMVs)
operating in interstate commerce. The
term CMV includes 4 alternative
definitions: A minimum weight of
10,001 pounds gross vehicle weight
(GVW) or GVWR, whichever is greater
[49 U.S.C. 31132(1)(A)]; two different
capacity thresholds for different types of
passenger vehicle operation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
[§ 31132(1)(B)–(C)]; or the transportation
of placardable quantities of hazardous
material [§ 31132(1)(D)]. NHTSA
proposes to require manufacturers to
install speed limiting devices only on
vehicles with a GVWR above 26,000
pounds. FMCSA has no authority to
regulate vehicle manufacturers [49
U.S.C. 31147(b)] but proposes to require
operators of CMVs covered by the
NHTSA requirement who use the
vehicles in interstate commerce to
maintain speed limiting devices at the
same level of effectiveness as the
original equipment, irrespective of the
CMV’s passenger capacity or use to
transport placardable quantities of
hazardous material.
Before prescribing any regulations,
FMCSA must also consider their ‘‘costs
and benefits’’ [49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A)
and 31502(d)]. Those factors are
discussed in this proposed rule.
III. Background
A. Speed Limiting Technology
All vehicles with electronic engine
control units (ECUs) are electronically
speed limited to prevent general damage
to the vehicle. This is because the ECU
monitors an engine’s RPM and also
controls the supply of fuel to the engine.
Available information indicates that
ECUs have been installed in most heavy
trucks since 1999, though we are aware
that some manufacturers were still
installing mechanical controls through
2003.19 In addition, it appears that the
practice of voluntarily setting the speed
limiting devices, most often at speeds
from 60 to 70 mph, has grown in recent
years. Some trucking fleets use ECUs to
limit the speed of their trucks in order
to reduce the number of speed-related
crashes, reduce fuel consumption, and
reduce maintenance costs.
B. NHTSA’s 1991 Report to Congress on
CMV Speed Control Devices
Section 9108 of the Truck and Bus
Safety and Regulatory Reform Act of
1988 required the Secretary of
Transportation to conduct a study on
whether devices that control the speed
of CMVs enhance safe operation of such
vehicles and to submit to Congress a
report on the results of the study
together with recommendations on
whether to make the use of speed
control devices mandatory for CMVs.20
In response to this Act, NHTSA
published a Report to Congress titled
19 Hino Motors indicated in its comments to the
2007 Request for Comments that it manufactured
mechanically controlled vehicles through model
year 2003.
20 Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform
Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, 102 Stat. 4527, 4530
(Nov. 18, 1988).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61947
‘‘Commercial Motor Vehicle Speed
Control Safety.’’ 21 This report reviewed
the problem of heavy vehicle speeding
(in particular, at speeds greater than 65
mph, which was the maximum rural
Interstate speed limit at the time) and
‘‘speeding-related’’ crash
involvements.22 The report described
and assessed devices available to
control truck speed, and addressed the
mandatory use of speed control devices
by heavy trucks. The report stated that,
by all measures of crash involvement,
speeding was not a significant factor in
the crashes involving single-unit trucks.
Thus, most of the report addressed
combination trucks, which presented a
more complex picture.
The report described the results of
non-detectable radar studies that
showed that highway speed limit
compliance by combination trucks was
poor but better than that of passenger
vehicles. In the non-detectable radar
studies examined in the report, most
trucks that were found to be speeding
were traveling at just over the posted
speed limit. Crash statistics indicated
that speeding was generally less
associated with combination truck
crashes than it was with passenger
vehicle crashes. The report described
devices available to control truck speed
and ways that they were applied in
commercial fleet settings. The report
was supportive of fleet applications of
speed monitoring devices and speed
limiting devices but at that time
concluded that there was not sufficient
justification to consider requiring all
heavy trucks to be so equipped due to
the small number of target crashes and
uncertainties regarding the potential for
crash reduction, which suggested that
the benefits of mandatory speed
limitation were questionable.
Specifically, problem size statistics 23
suggested that the number of target
crashes was low, e.g., approximately 30
fatal crash involvements per year for
combination trucks. The report also
noted that all speeding-related crash
statistics cited in the report used the
categorization ‘‘speeding-related’’ or
‘‘high-speed-related,’’ but that these
terms did not necessarily mean that
speeding was the primary cause of the
crash or any resulting fatalities. The
report stated that virtually all crashes
21 NHTSA, Commercial Motor Vehicle Speed
Control Safety, DOT HS 807 725 (May 1991). A
copy of this report has been placed in the docket.
22 For the purposes of the report, a vehicle was
considered to be ‘‘speeding’’ if its estimated travel
speed exceeded the posted speed limit.
23 For the purposes of the 1991 report, the
‘‘problem size’’ included crashes where the Police
Accident Report indicated speeding at a speed
greater than 70 mph.
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
61948
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
involve multiple contributing factors
and that the elimination of any one
factor—e.g., high speed—may or may
not prevent the crash. Thus, the report
viewed the identified speeding-related
and high-speed-related crashes as only
potential target crashes for speed control
devices. The report concluded that
although speed control devices (if not
tampered with) were likely to reduce
the highway speeds of those trucks that
do speed, their effectiveness in
preventing and/or reducing the severity
of these potential target crashes was
unknown.
C. Petitions for Rulemaking
1. American Trucking Associations
(ATA) Petition
On October 20, 2006, the ATA
submitted a petition to NHTSA,
pursuant to 49 CFR 552.3, to initiate a
rulemaking to amend the FMVSS to
require vehicle manufacturers to limit
the speed of trucks with a GVWR greater
than 26,000 pounds to no more than 68
mph.24 Concurrently, the ATA
petitioned FMCSA, pursuant to 49 CFR
389.31, to initiate a rulemaking to
amend the FMCSR to prohibit owners
and operators from adjusting the speed
limiting devices in affected vehicles in
a way that enables the vehicles to
exceed a speed of 68 mph.
The ATA stated that reducing speedrelated crashes involving trucks is
critical to the safety mission of both
NHTSA and FMCSA, and that the
requested requirements are necessary in
order to reduce the number and severity
of crashes involving large trucks. ATA’s
petition stated:
A lack of focus on speed as a causal or
significant contributing factor in crashes
involving large trucks represents a significant
gap in the federal government’s truck safety
strategy. While much of the federal truck
safety budget has focused on ensuring the
safe condition of equipment, on driver
fatigue, and on prevention of impaired
driving, it is clear from the research that
speeding is a more significant factor in
crashes involving trucks than any of the
factors that currently receive the largest
proportion of agency attention and resources.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The ‘‘Justification’’ section of ATA’s
petition also stated:
ATA analyzed five years of fatal truckinvolved crash data. We found that in 20
percent of truck-involved fatal crashes where
speeding on the part of the truck driver was
cited as a factor in the crash, and the truck’s
speed was recorded, the speed of the truck
exceeded 68 mph. However, because the
truck’s speed is reported by investigating
officers in only about half of truck-involved
fatal crashes, it is impossible to determine
24 Docket
No. NHTSA–2007–26851–0005.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
the actual number of potential crashes that
might be avoided by limiting top truck speed
to 68 mph. However, reasonable assumptions
can be made and ATA believes the number
of fatal crashes that could be avoided is
significant.
The ATA stated in its petition that
reducing the speed of trucks will likely
reduce both the number and severity of
crashes, although ATA did not quantify
injury or fatality reduction benefits. The
ATA also stated that the reduced
number of crashes, resulting from the
lower speed for trucks, will reduce
congestion, thereby reducing societal
costs associated with the loss of
productivity that occurs when vehicles
have been disabled in a crash or delayed
at a crash site.
According to the ATA, there will be
little or no cost increase for truck and
truck tractor manufacturers associated
with limiting the maximum speed since
speed limiting devices are already
installed on these vehicles during
manufacture as a feature of the
electronic engine control unit. Also, the
ATA contended that the cost to carriers
for the increase in time required to
complete a delivery will be offset by
savings in fuel consumption, fewer
crashes, and less equipment wear.
2. Road Safe America Petition
On September 8, 2006, Road Safe
America, a public safety interest group,
and a group of nine motor carriers 25
petitioned FMCSA to amend the
FMCSRs to require (1) electronic speed
governors on all trucks with a GVWR
over 26,000 pounds, (2) that these
electronic speed governors be set at not
more than 68 mph, and (3) that all
trucks manufactured after 1990 be
equipped with such electronic speed
governors.26 The Road Safe America
petition stated that the proposal to limit
truck speed to 68 mph would reduce the
number of truck collisions and save
lives. According to Road Safe America,
limiting truck speed to 68 mph will
have an immediate and uniform impact
with little or no detrimental effect on
the lawful operation of CMVs.
D. Request for Comment
On January 26, 2007, NHTSA and
FMCSA published a joint Request for
Comments notice in the Federal
Register (72 FR 3904) seeking public
comments on the ATA and Road Safe
25 The nine motor carriers who cosigned the Road
Safe America petition are 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.
26 Docket Nos. NHTSA–2007–265.281–0001,
NHTSA–2007–265.281–0002.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
America petitions. This notice included
a summary of the ATA and Road Safe
America petitions, a review of heavy
truck crash statistics, a brief summary of
the 1991 NHTSA Report to Congress on
Commercial Vehicle Speed Control
Devices, and a request for specific
information concerning the
appropriateness of a Federal regulation
limiting the speed of large trucks to 68
mph. The notice discussed how NHTSA
is responsible for developing and
issuing FMVSSs that establish
minimum safety requirements for motor
vehicles sold in the United States, and
that if NHTSA ultimately established
requirements to equip trucks with speed
limiting devices as requested, FMCSA
would initiate a rulemaking proceeding
to amend the FMCSRs as necessary to
ensure that trucks are equipped and
maintained with a speed limiting device
meeting the requirements specified in
the applicable FMVSS.
The Agencies received over 3,000
comments in response to the Request for
Comments, mostly from private citizens
and small businesses.27 Of these, many
supported a regulation that would limit
the speed of large trucks to 68 mph,
including trucking fleets and consumer
advocacy groups. Other comments
submitted by independent owneroperator truckers, one trucking fleet
association, and private citizens were
opposed to the rulemaking approach
requested in the petitions.
Supported
Comments from private citizens and
small organizations supporting the
petitions include responses from
individuals who were involved in
crashes with heavy trucks or had friends
or relatives who were killed or severely
injured in crashes with large trucks. The
private citizen supporters of the
petitions include non-truck drivers who
stated they are intimidated by the
hazardous driving practices of some
truck drivers, such as speeding,
tailgating, and abrupt lane changes.
These comments expressed the belief
that limiting the speed of heavy trucks
to 68 mph would result in safer
highways, and several private citizens
recommended that trucks be limited to
65 mph rather than 68 mph.
Trucking organizations and safety
groups supported the petition for
similar reasons, and the comments
summarized below represent the range
of issues they addressed.
Schneider National, Inc. (Schneider),
a motor carrier with a sizeable trucking
27 Docket No. NHTSA–2007–26851, available at
http://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NHTSA–2007–26851).
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
fleet, indicated that its trucks have had
speed limiting devices set to 65 mph
since 1996. According to Schneider’s
crash data involving its own fleet,
vehicles without speed limiting devices
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. (J. B. Hunt),
another large trucking fleet, commented
that a differential speed between cars
and large trucks will result from trucks
being equipped with speed limiting
devices 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 of
greater concern.
Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) commented that
large trucks require 20 to 40 percent
more braking distance than passenger
cars and light trucks for a given travel
speed. Advocates also indicated that it
did not believe that the data in the
agency’s 1991 Report to Congress 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 65 mph that was
in effect in 1991.28
The Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) stated on-board electronic
ECUs 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. IIHS asserted that limiting
trucks to 68 mph would enhance safety
but that limiting the vehicles to speeds
below 68 mph would be safer.
The Governors Highway Safety
Association (GHSA) commented that
large trucks are over-represented in
motor vehicle crashes, stating that,
based on 2004 data, large trucks were 3
percent of registered vehicles and
represented about 8 percent of the total
miles traveled nationwide, but were
involved in 12 percent of traffic
fatalities. GHSA stated that
conventional approaches to vehicle
speed control do not provide optimal
benefits because of limited enforcement
agree with Advocates that the conclusions
of our 1991 report are no longer valid, and have
discussed this issue in detail in the section titled
‘‘Applicability of the 1991 Report to Congress on
Heavy Speed Limiters.’’
resources and the large number of miles
of highway to cover. Accordingly,
GHSA stated that it is prudent to
consider requiring speed-limiting
devices since they are currently
installed in large trucks and can be
adapted to be tamper-resistant.
Several comments, including those
from ATA’s Technology & Maintenance
Council, provided information
concerning economic, non-safety
benefits that would result from
requiring large trucks to be speed
limited. The Technology & 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.
Opposed
Comments opposing the petitions
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 asserted that mandating speed
limiting devices would not reduce the
number of crashes involving heavy
trucks. Specifically, OOIDA commented
that the agency’s 1991 Report to
Congress is still valid today—asserting
there is no need to mandate speed
limiting devices because the target
population (high speed crashes) is still
small compared to the total number of
truck crashes. According to OOIDA,
speed limiting devices 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 speedlimited vehicles will not be forced to
compete for drivers against independent
trucking operations that have not
limited their speeds to 68 mph or below.
OOIDA also questioned the magnitude
of the fuel economy benefits that would
be realized with speed limiting devices
and stated that it is not necessary to set
large truck speed limiting devices 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. OOIDA also
stated that driver compensation and the
lack of entry level driver training
contribute to the problem of driving at
excessive speeds.29
28 We
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
29 FMCSA notes that Section 32305 of MAP–21
requires the agency to complete a rulemaking
requiring entry-level training for all drivers seeking
a commercial driver’s license (CDL).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61949
TCA and OOIDA both 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 could result in more
interaction between cars and trucks,
thus posing an additional safety risk for
cars and trucks.
Other Issues
According to comments from CDW
Transport, a trucking fleet, speed
limiting devices should be required on
passenger vehicles as well as CMVs.
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 some
comments stating that passenger
vehicles cause the majority of the
crashes between trucks and passenger
vehicles. Some commenters stated that
truck drivers will experience more
fatigue with a 68-mph maximum speed,
which could result in more crashes.
Others expressed the opinion that State
and local law enforcement agencies
should enforce the speed of all vehicles
on the nation’s roads and highways,
while some commenters favored a 75mph limit for truck speed limiting
devices, instead of 68 mph, to match the
highest posted speed limit in the
country.
The Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA) 30 provided
information concerning the cost of
tamper-proof speed limiting devices for
large trucks. EMA estimates a one-time
cost of $35 million to $50 million would
be required to develop ECUs with
tamper-resistant speed limiting devices
and a one-time cost of $150 million to
$200 million to develop ECUs with
tamper-proof speed limiting devices.
With both of these ECU designs, there
would be additional costs to make
adjustments to the ECU for maximum
speed, tire size, and drive axle and
transmission gear ratio information.
E. NHTSA Notice Granting Petitions
On January 3, 2011, NHTSA
published a notice granting the two
speed limiting device-related
petitions.31 Based on information
received in response to a request for
comments, we stated that these petitions
merit further consideration through the
rulemaking process. In addition,
30 In 2011, the Engine Manufacturers Association,
which includes the Truck Manufacturers
Association, announced a new joint name for the
organization, the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association.
31 76 FR 78 (Jan. 3, 2011).
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
61950
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
because the petitions involved
overlapping issues, NHTSA stated that
it would address them together in a
single rulemaking. Finally, the agency
noted that the determination of whether
to issue a rule would be made in the
course of the rulemaking proceeding, in
accordance with statutory criteria.
F. FMCSA Research—Speed Limiting
Device Installation on CMVs
In March 2012, FMCSA published a
research report on a study intended to
identify the safety impacts of
implementing speed limiting devices in
commercial vehicle fleet operation.32
The FMCSA study focused on the
reduction in truck crashes that could
have been avoided and/or mitigated
with an active speed limiting device
installed. This was the first study to use
actual crash data collected directly from
truck fleets, representing a wide array of
crashes. More specifically, the study
included data from 20 truck fleets,
including approximately 138,000 trucks,
and it analyzed more than 15,000
crashes. The findings showed strong
positive benefits for speed-limited
trucks. In terms of safety benefits,
results indicated that trucks equipped
with speed limiting devices had a
statistically significant lower speedlimited-relevant crash rate compared to
trucks without speed limiting devices
(1.6 crashes per 100 trucks/year versus
2.9 crashes per 100 trucks/year).
FMCSA’s Compliance, Safety, and
Accountability Program 33 (CSA)
addresses the issue of speeding-related
crashes through its Unsafe Driving
BASIC. This BASIC is a strong predictor
of crash rates, although not the severity
of crashes.
The FMCSA report focused on the
effectiveness of a set speed limiter in
avoiding crashes. Because this research
relied on fleets to report crashes, a level
of uncertainty was introduced based on
varying reporting techniques.
Additional uncertainty was introduced
because of difficulties in establishing
comparable routes in order to balance
risk exposure. While the FMCSA study
was large, the agencies are using a
distinctively different approach for the
estimation of benefits that includes 10
years of crash data analysis. As
described later in this notice, NHTSA
has examined actual crashes and the
severity of those crashes at various
speeds to estimate the safety benefits of
reducing crash speeds. While NHTSA’s
approach to estimating the safety
benefits is more conservative, the
agency has greater confidence that the
benefits demonstrated in our approach
will be fully realized because of our
approach’s ability to more effectively
isolate the effects of speed reduction on
safety.
IV. Heavy Vehicle Speed Related Safety
Problem
A. Heavy Vehicle Crashes at High
Speeds
Studies examining the relationship
between travel speed and crash severity
have concluded that the severity of a
crash increases with increased travel
speed.34 Impact force during a crash is
related to vehicle speed, and even small
increases in speed have large effects on
the force of impact. As speed increases,
so does the amount of kinetic energy a
vehicle has. Because the kinetic energy
equation has a velocity-squared term,
the kinetic energy increase is
exponential compared to the speed
increase, so that even small increases in
speed have large effects on kinetic
energy. For example, a 5 mph speed
increase from 30 mph to 35 mph
increases the kinetic energy by onethird.35 The effect is particularly
relevant for combination trucks (i.e.,
truck tractor and trailer) due to their
large mass.36 Additionally, higher
speeds extend the distance necessary to
stop a vehicle and reduce the ability of
the vehicle, restraint device, and
roadway hardware such as guardrails,
barriers, and impact attenuators to
protect vehicle occupants in the event of
a crash.37
In evaluating the role travel speed
plays in heavy vehicle crashes, the
agencies used FARS and GES crash data
over the 10-year period between 2004
and 2013 to examine crashes involving
heavy vehicles (i.e., vehicles with a
GVWR of over 11,793.4 kg (26,000
pounds)) on roads with posted speed
limits of 55 mph or above. The agency
focused on crashes in which the speed
of the heavy vehicle likely contributed
to the severity of the crash (e.g., single
vehicle crashes, crashes in which the
heavy vehicle was the striking vehicle).
The agencies estimated that these
crashes resulted in 10,440 fatalities 38
from 2004 to 2013 (approximately 1,044
annually).
Among the 10,440 fatalities, 9,747
resulted from crashes involving
combination trucks, 442 resulted from
crashes involving single unit trucks and
the remaining 251 resulted from crashes
involving buses.
TABLE 4—ADJUSTED FATAL TARGET POPULATION BASED ON FARS, CRASH AND OCCUPANT COUNTS
[For vehicles with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lbs.), 10 years, 2004–2013]
Combination truck
Single unit truck
Bus
Person counts
Crash counts
Person counts
Crash counts
Person counts
9,285
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Crash counts
9,747
417
442
194
251
32 Hanowski, R. et al., Research on the Safety
Impacts of Speed Limiter Device Installations on
Commercial Motor Vehicles: Phase II, FMCSA–
RRR–12–006, March 2012, available at http://
ntl.bts.gov/lib/51000/51300/51361/SpeedLimiters.pdf
33 http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/.
34 Johnson, Steven L. & Pawar, Naveen, MackBlackwell Rural Transportation Center, Cost-Benefit
Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile Speed Limits
Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways, MBTC
2048 (Nov. 2005).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
35 Virginia Commonwealth University Safety
Training Center Web site, http://www.vcu.edu/
cppweb/tstc/crashinvestigation/kinetic.html.
36 Johnson, Steven L. & Pawar, Naveen, MackBlackwell Rural Transportation Center, Cost-Benefit
Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile Speed Limits
Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways, MBTC
2048 (Nov. 2005).
37 Liu Cejun & Chen, Chou-Lin, NHTSA, An
Analysis of Speeding-Related Crashes: Definitions
and the Effects of Road Environments, DOT HS 811
090 (Feb. 2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38 The fatality numbers were also adjusted to
reflect the effect of new heavy requirements that
have been adopted by NHTSA within the last
several years (e.g., the final rule adopting seat belt
requirements for passenger seats in buses (78 FR
70415 (Nov. 25, 2013), the final rule to adopt
electronic stability control requirements for heavy
vehicles (80 FR 36049 (June 23, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
B. NTSB Motorcoach Speed-Related
Crash Investigation
In addition to examining the FARS
and NASS GES data relating to fatal
heavy vehicle crashes, the agencies
reviewed the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) Accident Reports
to better understand the details
surrounding high-speed crashes
involving motorcoaches. The agencies
identified one motorcoach crash in
which excessive vehicle speed was cited
as a major safety risk. The crash
occurred on U.S. Route 163, in Mexican
Hat, Utah, on January 6, 2008.39 Nine
passengers were fatally injured and 43
passengers and the driver sustained
injuries.
As part of the crash investigation,
NTSB conducted a vehicle speed
analysis and estimated that the
motorcoach was likely traveling 88 mph
at the time of the crash. Although the
motorcoach had a speed-limiting device
with a maximum speed of 72 mph,
NTSB determined that the motorcoach
was capable of achieving a higher speed
while in 10th gear when going
downhill.
Based on the facts surrounding this
crash, this incident does not necessarily
demonstrate the safety risk that speedlimiting devices are meant to address.
Existing speed-limiting devices regulate
a vehicle’s speed by monitoring the
engine’s RPM and controlling the
supply of fuel to the engine, but do not
limit the downhill speed of a vehicle.
Although today’s proposal would not
necessarily limit speed on downhill
portions of roadways, we are requesting
comments on whether a device that
could limit speeds in such a situation is
technically feasible.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Applicability of NHTSA’s 1991
Report to Congress on CMV Speed
Control Devices
As discussed above, in 1991, NHTSA
published a report titled ‘‘Commercial
Motor Vehicle Speed Control
Devices.’’ 40 This report reviewed the
problem of commercial vehicle
operations at speeds greater than 65
mph and these vehicles’ involvement in
speed-related crashes. The report found
that combination trucks tended to travel
at just over the posted speed limit. The
report was supportive of fleet
applications of speed monitoring and
speed-limiting devices but concluded
that, because of the small target
population size, there was not sufficient
39 NTSB/HAR–09/01 PB2009–91620; Motorcoach
Run-Off-the-Road and Rollover U.S. Route 163,
Mexican Hat, Utah; January 6, 2008.
40 DOT HS 807 725 (May 1991).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
justification to require the application of
speed-limiting devices at that time.
In response to the two petitions
received by NHTSA, we reexamined the
report and determined that several
factors have changed since its
submission in 1991, including data on
the target population, changes in the
costs and technology of speed limiting
devices, and the repeal of the national
maximum speed limit law. These
changes undermine the conclusions
contained in the 1991 report.
The 1991 report focused on the crash
involvement rate of heavy vehicles. The
report estimated 39 fatalities annually
involving combination trucks traveling
in excess of 70 mph. However, the
report stated that NHTSA was unable to
determine whether the reduction in
heavy vehicle travel speeds would
actually reduce the crash risk (or
resulting fatality risk) of these vehicles
significantly, since other, non-speedrelated factors might still have occurred
to cause the crashes. The report
determined that the incremental
benefits of mandatory speed limiting
devices were questionable.
As described in more detail below
and in the Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis (PRIA) that
accompanies this NPRM, included in
the docket, the agencies have analyzed
more recent data from 2004 to 2013 in
order to determine the potential benefits
of limiting the maximum speed of
vehicles with a GVWR of over 11,793.4
kg (26,000 pounds). Instead of focusing
on the effect of such devices on crash
involvement rate, we have focused on
their effect on crash severity and used
this approach to isolate the effect of
speed on the fatal crash rate.
Accordingly, this methodology allows
us to estimate with greater certainty the
lives that can be saved by electronically
setting the maximum speed of vehicles
with a GVWR of over 11,793.4 kg
(26,000 pounds). Additionally, the 1991
report detailed the mechanisms for
limiting speed available at that time and
their associated costs. While the report
accurately predicted the proliferation of
electronically-controlled engines
capable of limiting speed, it also noted
the high cost of installing mechanical
engine speed governors on vehicles. The
available information indicates that
electronically-controlled engines have
been installed in most heavy trucks
since 1999, though we are aware that
some manufacturers were still installing
mechanical controls through 2003.
Accordingly, many of the equipment
cost concerns discussed in the 1991
report are inapplicable today.
Finally, during the time the 1991
report was being developed, the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61951
maximum speed limit in the U.S. was
55 mph.41 The national speed limit was
repealed in 1995.42 Examining current
State speed limits, the maximum posted
speed limits for trucks vary between 55
and 85, with 35 States having a
maximum posted truck speed limit
above 65 mph.43
• 55 mph: California, District of
Columbia
• 60 mph: Hawaii, Michigan,
Washington
• 65 mph: Alaska, Connecticut,
Delaware, Indiana, Massachusetts,
Montana, New Jersey, New York,
Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont
• 70 mph: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,
Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia,
Wisconsin
• 75 mph: Arizona, Colorado, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma
• 80 mph: Nevada, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming
• 85 mph: Texas
Thus, vehicles, including those with a
GVWR of 11,793.4 kg (26,000 pounds),
are now traveling faster than they were
in 1991.
Based on the foregoing, the agencies
have determined that it was appropriate
to reexamine the report to Congress and
have come to the conclusion that the
concerns and conclusions in that report
are no longer valid. However, we have
no plans at this time to prepare an
updated study, given limited agency
resources.
VI. Comparative Regulatory
Requirements
In developing this proposal, the
agencies examined speed-limiting
requirements in other countries, which
are summarized below. Several
jurisdictions have imposed speedlimiting requirements on certain heavy
41 Although the maximum national speed limit
was 55 mph, some rural interstates were exceptions
to this, with maximum speed limits of 65mph.
42 The Emergency Highway Energy Conservation
Act in 1974 mandated a 55 mph national maximum
speed limit on all U.S. highways and tied highway
funds to the enforcement of the limit by States. The
Surface Transportation Uniform Relocation
Assistance Act (1987) gave each state the right to
increase speed limits on portions of the Interstate
system lying within the least-populated areas of its
boundaries. The National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995 gave States the ability to
set speed limits.
43 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,
Maximum Posted Speed Limits, http://
www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/
speedlimits?topicName=speed, (last visited June
2016).
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
61952
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
connections that are capable of playing
a role in preventing a driver from
increasing the speed of a CMV beyond
a specified value shall be in good
working order.
• A CMV’s electronic control module
shall contain information that
accurately corresponds with any
component or feature of the vehicle
referred to in the module, including
information regarding the tire rolling
radius, axle gear ratio and transmission
gear ratio.
Æ Within the first 10 seconds after
reaching the ‘Set Speed’ the maximum
vehicle road speed shall not exceed
105% of ‘Set Speed’ and the rate of
change of vehicle road speed shall not
exceed 0.5 m/s2.
Æ More than 10 seconds after
reaching the ‘Set Speed’, the maximum
vehicle road speed shall not differ from
the ‘Set Speed’ by more than plus or
minus 3.3% of the ‘Set Speed’ and the
rate of change of road speed shall not
exceed 0.2 m/s2.
A. Canada
Transport Canada does not have a
Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard for heavy vehicle speed
limiting; however, the provinces of
Ontario and Quebec do require that if a
CMV is equipped with an electronic
control module capable of being
programmed to limit vehicle speed, it
must be set to no more than 105 km/h
(65 mph).44 This requirement does not
apply to buses, mobile cranes, motor
homes, vehicles manufactured before
1995, vehicles with a manufacturer’s
gross vehicle weight rating under
11,793.4 kg (26,000 pounds),
ambulances, cardiac arrest emergency
vehicles, or fire apparatuses.
Additional requirements for Ontario
include the following:
• A speed-limiting device is properly
set if it prevents a driver, by means of
accelerator application, from
accelerating to or maintaining a speed
greater than permitted.
• The maximum speed shall be set by
means of the electronic control module
that limits the feed of fuel to the
engine.45
• A CMV is exempt if it is equipped
with an equally effective device, not
dependent on the electronic control
module, which allows limitation of
vehicle speed, remotely or not, but does
not allow the driver to deactivate or
modify the set speed.
• All aspects of a CMV’s computer
device or devices, computer programs,
components, equipment and
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
vehicles and have developed test
procedures to ensure that covered
vehicles meet these requirements. The
Canadian provinces of Quebec and
Ontario limited the speed of large trucks
to 65 mph in July 2009. In Australia,
large trucks have been limited to 62
mph since 1990, with a 56 mph limit for
road trains (multiple trailers). The
European Union has limited the speed
of large trucks and buses under its
jurisdiction to 62 mph since 1994. Japan
limited large trucks to 56 mph in 2003.
B. Australia
C. Europe
In 1992, the European Commission
(EC) issued directive 92/6/EEC,
requiring installation of speed limiting
devices on trucks weighing over 12,000
kg (26,400 pounds) and buses with eight
or more passenger seats weighing over
10,000 kg (22,000 pounds). The
directive required that the speed
limiting devices be set in such a way
that covered trucks could not exceed 90
km/h (55.9 mph) and that covered buses
could not exceed 100 km/h (62.1 mph).
These requirements were phased in,
initially applying to new vehicles
registered after January 1, 1994. A
retrofit requirement was subsequently
added so that the speed-limiting
requirements apply to all covered
vehicles registered after January 1, 1988.
That same year, UNECE enacted
Regulation 89 (ECE R89), which details
uniform provisions concerning the
approval of vehicles with regard to their
maximum speed and installation of
speed limiting devices, as well as
approval of speed limiting devices
themselves.46 This regulation specifies
general requirements for vehicles with
speed limiting devices, as well as
performance requirements and test
procedures.
The ECE R89 test involves running
the vehicle on a test track at a speed 10
km/h (6.2 mph) below the set speed and
then accelerating the vehicle as much as
possible until at least 30 seconds after
the vehicle speed has stabilized. The
speed of the vehicle is recorded at
intervals of less than 0.1 second. The
test is considered satisfactory if the
stabilized speed of the vehicle does not
exceed the set speed of the vehicle by
more than five percent of the set speed
or 5 km/h (3.1 mph) (whichever is
greater), the maximum speed does not
44 See Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O, ch. H.8,
Section 68.1, available at http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_
statutes_90h08_e.htm#s68p1s1, and Equipment,
RRO/1990–587, available at http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_
900587_e.htm. In Quebec and Ontario, enforcement
is carried out primarily using standard speed
control methods to identify heavy vehicles being
driven at more than 105 km/h. Complementing
these methods, they use portable electronic testing
units connected to a port located inside the truck’s
cab, highway controllers to access motor data and
determine whether the speed limiter has been set
at a speed of 105 km/h or less. http://
www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/trucks/
trucklimits.shtml.
45 See O. Reg. 396/08, s.1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
In Australia, heavy goods vehicles
and heavy omnibus maximum road
speed are regulated through the
Australian Design Rule (ADR) 65/00
‘‘Maximum Road Speed Limiting for
Heavy Goods Vehicles.’’ This standard
applies to heavy omnibuses with a gross
vehicle mass (GVM) of 5 tons or more
(UNECE category code M3), as well as
heavy goods vehicles over 12 tons
(UNECE category code N3). For ‘‘Road
Train’’ vehicles, the maximum road
speed capability is established by the
State or Territory authority. For other
heavy goods vehicles and for heavy
omnibus vehicles, the maximum road
speed capability may be no greater than
100 km/h (62 mph).
The ADR allows for vehicles to be
speed-limited by means of gearing or a
governor and tested with the following
conditions:
• The tires shall be bedded and the
pressure shall be as specified by the
manufacturer.
• The vehicle shall be at ‘Unladen
Mass.’
• The track surface shall be free from
standing water, snow or ice and shall be
free from uneven patches; and the
gradient shall not exceed 2 percent and
gradients shall not vary by more than 1
percent excluding camber effects.
• The mean wind road speed
measured at a height at least 1 meter
above the ground shall be less than 6 m/
s with gusts not exceeding 10 m/s.
• The instantaneous vehicle road
speed shall be recorded throughout the
test with a road speed measurement
accuracy of at least plus or minus 1
percent at maximum time intervals of
0.1 seconds. The test is then conducted
‘‘starting from a road speed 10 km/h less
than the ‘Set Speed’ and the vehicle
shall be accelerated as much as possible
without changing gear by using a fully
positive action on the accelerator
control. This action shall be maintained
without changing gear for at least 30
seconds after the ‘Set Speed’ is
achieved.’’ The acceptance criteria for
this test are twofold.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
46 UNECE R89, Uniform provisions concerning
the approval of: I. Vehicles with regard to limitation
of their maximum speed or their adjustable speed
limitation function; II. Vehicles with regard to the
installation of a speed limiting device (SLD) or
adjustable speed limitation device (ASLD) of an
approved type; III. Speed limitation devices (SLD)
and adjustable speed limitation device (ASLD),’’ E/
ECE/324–E/ECE/TRANS/505//Rev. 1/Add. 88/
Amend. 2 (January 30, 2011).
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
exceed the stabilized speed by more
than five percent, and the variance in
vehicle speed and rate of change of
vehicle speed does not exceed certain
thresholds during specified portions of
the test.
In 2002, the EC issued directive 2002/
85/EC, which extended the coverage of
the speed limiting device requirements
to include trucks weighing between
3,500 kg (7,716 pounds) and 12,000 kg
(26,400 pounds) and buses with eight or
more passenger seats weighing less than
10,000 kg (22,000 pounds).
The ECE R89 requirements are as
follows:
• The speed limitation must be such
that the vehicle in normal use, despite
the vibrations to which it may be
subjected, complies with certain
provisions including the following:
Æ The vehicle’s speed limiting device
(SLD) must be so designed, constructed
and assembled as to resist corrosion and
ageing phenomena to which it may be
exposed and to resist tampering in
accordance with the paragraph below.
D The limitation threshold must not,
in any case, be capable of being
increased or removed temporarily or
permanently on vehicles in use.
D The speed limitation function and
the connections necessary for its
operation, except those essential for the
running of the vehicle, shall be capable
of being protected from any
unauthorized adjustments or the
interruption of its energy supply by the
attachment of sealing devices and/or the
need to use special tools.
Æ The speed limiting function shall
not actuate the vehicle’s service braking
device. A permanent brake (e.g.,
retarder) may be incorporated only if it
operates after the speed limitation
function has restricted the fuel feed to
the minimum fuel position.
Æ The speed limitation function must
be such that it does not affect the
vehicle’s road speed if a positive action
on the accelerator is applied when the
vehicle is running at its set speed.
Æ The speed limitation function may
allow normal acceleration control for
the purpose of gear changing.
Æ No malfunction or unauthorized
interference shall result in an increase
in engine power above that demanded
by the position of the driver’s
accelerator.
Æ The speed limitation function shall
be obtained regardless of the accelerator
control used if there is more than one
such control which may be reached
from the driver’s seating position.
Æ The speed limitation function shall
operate satisfactorily in its
electromagnetic environment ‘‘without
unacceptable electromagnetic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
disturbance for anything in this
environment.’’
Æ The applicant for approval shall
provide documentation describing
checking and calibration procedures. ‘‘It
shall be possible to check the
functioning of the speed limitation
function whilst the vehicle is
stationary.’’
Annex 5 of the ECE R89 regulation
provides specific vehicle, test track, test
equipment, and test methods upon
which we have based our proposed test
procedure. The ECE regulation also
contains specific acceleration,
deceleration, and speed.
The test begins with the vehicle
running at a speed 10 km/h below the
set speed and then accelerated as much
as possible using a fully positive action
on the accelerator control. This action is
then maintained for at least 30 seconds
after the vehicle speed has been
stabilized. During the test, the vehicle’s
precise speed and time are collected in
order to calculate the maximum speed,
stabilized speed, the amount of time
required to stabilize the speed,
maximum acceleration before the
stabilized speed is established, and the
maximum acceleration during the
stabilized period.
D. Japan
In Japan, speed limitation devices are
required to be installed on motor
vehicles used to carry goods and have
a GVWR of 8 tons or more or a
maximum loading capacity of 5 tons or
more. These devices are also required
on trucks drawing trailers which have a
GVWR of 8 tons or more or a maximum
loading capacity of 5 tons or more. The
general rules for these devices are as
follows:
• The speed limitation device shall be
so constructed that the vehicle may not
be accelerated by the operation of the
acceleration devices, such as the
accelerator pedal, when the vehicle is
running at its set speed.
• The set speed of the speed
limitation device shall be any speed not
exceeding 90 km/h. Furthermore, the
speed limitation device shall be so
constructed that the users, etc. of the
vehicle cannot alter the set speed nor
release the setting.
• The speed limitation device shall be
fully capable of ‘‘withstanding the
running.’’ Even if wrong operation, etc.,
of the speed limitation device should
occur, it would not incur any increased
output that will exceed the engine
output determined by the condition of
the accelerating devices, such as the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61953
depressing amount of the accelerator
pedal.47
• On motor vehicles equipped with
‘‘plural’’ accelerating devices, the speed
limitation device shall actuate for every
accelerating device.
• The speed limitation device shall
not actuate the service brake device of
the vehicle. However, the speed
limitation device may actuate the
auxiliary brake device only after the fuel
supply has been minimized.
• The speed limitation device and
connections necessary for its operation
(except connections whose
disconnection will prevent the normal
motor vehicle operation) shall be
capable of being protected from any
unauthorized adjustments that will
hamper the function of the speed
limitation device or the interruption of
its energy supply, such as power
supply, by the attachment of sealing
devices and/or the need to use special
tools. However, this provision shall not
apply to speed limitation devices whose
function can be confirmed while the
vehicle is stopping.
The conformity of these requirements
is tested either by the use of a proving
grounds test, a chassis dynamometer
test, or by an engine bench test in the
following ways:
• Proving grounds test
Æ Conditions of the test vehicle
D The air inflation pressure of the
tires shall be the value as posted in the
specification table. Moreover, the tires
shall be ones that have undergone
break-in.
D The weight of the test vehicle shall
be the vehicle weight. However, on
motor vehicles equipped with a spare
tire and onboard tools, the test may be
conducted with such articles mounted
on the vehicle.
Æ Characteristics of proving ground
D The surface of the proving ground
shall be flat paved road. Gradients shall
not exceed 2% and shall not vary by
more than 1% excluding camber effects.
D The surface of the proving ground
shall be free from water pool, snow
accumulation or ice formation.
Æ Ambient weather conditions
D The mean wind speed shall be less
than 6 m/s. Moreover, the maximum
wind speed shall not exceed 10 m/s.
• Acceleration test
Æ Test Procedure
D The vehicle running at a speed 10
km/h below the set speed shall be
accelerated as much as possible by
operating the accelerator device, e.g. by
47 NHTSA understands this provision to require
robustness of the speed limitation device and
limitations on the impacts of its failure.
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61954
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
depressing the accelerator pedal fully.
This action shall be maintained at least
30 seconds even after the vehicle speed
has been stabilized. The vehicle speeds
shall be recorded during the test in
order to establish the curve of the speed
versus the time. In this case, the
accuracy of the speed measurement
shall be within 1%, whereas the
accuracy of the time measurement shall
be within 0.1 second.
Æ The test shall be carried out for
each gear ratio allowing in theory the set
speed to be exceeded.
• Requirements
Æ In this test, the speed of the test
vehicle shall satisfy the following
requirements enumerated below.
D The stabilized speed shall not
exceed the set speed plus 5 km/h nor a
speed of 90 km/h.
D After the stabilization speed has
been reached for the first time, the
maximum speed shall not exceed the
stabilization speed multiplied by 1.05.
Furthermore, the absolute value of the
rate of change of speed shall not exceed
0.5 m/s 2 when measured on a period
greater than 0.1 second.
D Within 10 seconds of first reaching
the stabilized speed, the speed
limitation function shall be controlled
in such a way that the following
requirements are satisfied.
D The speed shall not vary by more
than 4% of the stabilized speed or 2 km/
h, whichever is greater.
D The absolute value of the rate of
change of speed shall not exceed 0.2 m/
s2 when measured over a period greater
than 0.1 second.
Æ Steady speed test
D Test procedure
• The vehicle shall be driven at full
acceleration up to the steady speed by
operating the acceleration device, e.g. by
depressing the accelerator pedal fully.
Then, the vehicle shall be maintained at
this stabilized speed at least 400 meters.
The vehicle’s average speed shall be
measured after the vehicle attained the
stabilized speed. Next, the same
measurement shall be repeated on the
proving ground but in the opposite
direction. The mean of the two average
speeds measured for both test runs shall
be considered the mean stabilized
speed. The whole test shall be
conducted five times. In this case, the
speed measurements shall be performed
with an accuracy of 1% whereas the
time measurements shall be carried out
with an accuracy of 0.1 second.
• The test shall be carried out for
each gear ratio allowing in theory the set
speed to be exceeded.
• Requirements
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Æ In this test, the speeds of the test
vehicle shall satisfy the following.
Æ On each test run, the mean
stabilized speed shall not exceed the set
speed plus 5 km/h or a speed of 90 km/
h.
Æ The difference between the
maximum value and the minimum
value of the mean stabilized speeds
obtained during each test run shall be
no more than 3 km/h.
• Chassis dynamometer test
Æ Conditions of chassis dynamometer
D The equivalent inertia weight shall
be set with an accuracy of ±10% of the
vehicle weight of the test vehicle.
• Acceleration test
Æ Test procedure
D The vehicle running at a speed 10
km/h below the set speed shall be
accelerated as much as possible by
operating the accelerating device, e.g. by
depressing the accelerator pedal fully.
This action shall be maintained at least
20 seconds even after the vehicle speed
has been stabilized. The vehicle speeds
shall be recorded during the test in
order to establish the curve of the speed
versus the time. In this case, the
accuracy of the speed measurement
shall be within ± 1%, whereas the
accuracy of the time measurement shall
be within 0.1 second.
D The load of the chassis
dynamometer during the test shall be set
to the forward running resistance of the
test vehicle with an accuracy of 10%.
Furthermore, when the competent
authority approves it as appropriate, the
load may be set to the maximum power
of the engine multiplied by 0.4.
D The test shall be carried out for each
gear ratio allowing in theory the set
speed to be exceeded.
• Test procedure
Æ The vehicle shall be driven at full
acceleration up to the steady speed by
operating the accelerating device, e.g.,
by depressing the accelerator pedal
fully. Then, the vehicle shall be
maintained at this stabilized speed at
least 400 meters. The vehicle’s average
speed shall be measured after the test
vehicle has attained the stabilized
speed. This average speed shall be
considered the mean stabilized speed.
The whole test shall be conducted five
times. The speed measurements shall be
performed with an accuracy of ± 1
percent, whereas the time
measurements shall be carried out with
an accuracy of within 0.1 second.
Æ The load of the chassis
dynamometer shall be changed
consecutively from the maximum power
of the engine to the maximum power of
the engine multiplied by 0.2.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Æ The test shall be carried out for
each gear ratio allowing in theory the set
speed to be exceeded.
• In this test, the requirements
prescribed shall be satisfied.
Æ Engine bench test
D This test method can be carried out
only when the competent authority
recognizes that this bench test is
equivalent to the proving ground
measurement.
• Indication
Æ With regard to those motor vehicles
equipped with a speed limitation device
that has complied with the requirement
of this Technical Standard, a mark shall
be indicated at a place in the vehicle
compartment where the driver can
easily see the mark and at the rear end
of the vehicle (excluding truck tractors).
VII. Proposed Requirements
A. Overview
1. Proposed FMVSS
NHTSA is proposing to establish a
new FMVSS that would require new
multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, buses, and school buses with a
gross vehicle weight rating of more than
11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds) to
be equipped with a speed-limiting
device. Additionally, as manufactured
and sold, each vehicle would be
required to have its device set to a
specified speed. Although NHTSA has
not specified a maximum set speed in
this proposal, NHTSA intends to specify
a maximum set speed in a final rule
implementing this proposal. NHTSA
has considered the benefits and costs of
a 68 mph maximum set speed as
requested in the petitions as well as 60
mph and 65 mph maximum set speeds
in the overview of benefits and costs
discussed in Section X of this document
and in the Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis, Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, and Draft
Environmental Assessment
accompanying this proposal.
To determine compliance with the
operational requirements for the speedlimiting device (e.g., that the vehicle is
in fact limited to the set speed), NHTSA
is proposing a vehicle level test that
involves accelerating the vehicle and
monitoring the vehicle’s speed. The
proposed test procedure is substantially
based on the UNECE R89, described
above.
Finally, to assist FMCSA’s
enforcement officials with postinstallation inspections and
investigations to ensure compliance
with the speed limiting device
maintenance requirement, NHTSA is
proposing to require that the vehicle set
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
speed and the speed determination
parameters be readable through the OnBoard Diagnostic (OBD) connection.48
In addition to the current speed limiting
device settings, NHTSA is proposing
that the previous two setting
modifications (i.e., the two most recent
modifications of the set speed of the
speed limiting device and the two most
recent modifications of the speed
determination parameters) be readable
and include the time and date of the
modifications.
NHTSA solicits comment on all
aspects of the proposed FMVSS,
including the requirements for a speedlimiting device, the initial set speed
requirement, the types of vehicles to
which the speed limiting device
requirements should be applicable, the
proposed recording requirement and
potential alternatives, and the proposed
test procedure.
2. Proposed FMCSR
FMCSA is proposing an FMCSR
requiring each CMV with a GVWR of
more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000
pounds) to be equipped with a speedlimiting 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 specified
speed. As with the FMVSS, FMCSA has
not specified the maximum set speed in
this proposal, FMCSA intends to specify
the maximum set speed in a final rule
implementing this proposal. Motor
carriers operating such vehicles in
interstate commerce would be required
to maintain the speed-limiting devices
for the service life of the vehicle.
FMCSA solicits comment on all aspects
of this proposed FMCSR.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Applicability
1. Proposed FMVSS
NHTSA is proposing that speed
limiting device requirements apply to
all new multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating of more than
11,793.4 kg (26,000 pounds). Although
the majority of the estimated safety
benefits of this joint rulemaking are for
combination trucks because they travel
more vehicle miles at high speeds, and
thus are involved in more high-speed
crashes, this rulemaking would also
reduce the number of fatalities from
crashes involving other types of heavy
vehicles, some of which carry a large
number of passengers. Additionally,
because other heavy vehicles like single
48 Further information on the specification of the
OBD connection is available at http://www.epa.gov/
obd/regtech/heavy.htm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
unit trucks and heavy buses have the
same heavy-duty engines as
combination trucks, the costs associated
with installing the required speedlimiting devices in these vehicles would
be minimal. For these reasons, the
agency has tentatively concluded that it
is appropriate to subject all types of
heavy vehicles to the speed-limiting
device requirements.
Regarding the GVWR threshold,
NHTSA decided to focus the speedlimiting device requirements on those
vehicles that carry the heaviest loads
and for which small increases in speed
have larger effects on the force of impact
in a crash. These vehicles would also be
subject to both FMCSA’s regulations
applicable to vehicles operated in
interstate commerce and states’
compatible regulations adopted as a
condition of receiving Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP)
grants.
Specifically, NHTSA considered how
FMCSA and its state partners could
effectively enforce the proposed
standard to realize the potential safety
benefits. These benefits result from
maintaining the speed-limiting devices
after they are sold. In general, NHTSA
does not have the authority to regulate
the use of motor vehicles or motor
vehicle equipment by vehicle owners.
However, almost all of the vehicles with
a GVWR over 11,793.4 kg (26,000
pounds) are CMVs and their
maintenance is regulated by FMCSA
through the FMCSRs.49 As discussed
throughout this notice, if NHTSA
requires speed limiting devices as
requested in the petitions, FMCSA will
simultaneously amend the FMCSRs to
ensure that CMVs with a GVWR over
26,000 pounds that operate in interstate
commerce are equipped and maintained
with a speed limiting device meeting
the requirements of the FMVSS.
Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to
limit the applicability of the speed
limiting device requirements to vehicles
with a GVWR over 11,793.4 kg (26,000
pounds) in order to ensure that these
vehicles continue to be speed limited.
NHTSA requests comment on the
applicability of the proposed speed
limiting device requirements,
specifically whether the proposed
requirements should apply to vehicles
with a GVWR of 11,793.4 kg (26,000
pounds) or lower. We are interested in
49 Some vehicles covered by the FMVSS would
not be covered by the FMCSR. These vehicles
include transit buses, motor homes, most school
buses, and CMVs in exclusively intrastate service.
States may voluntarily require CMVs in exclusively
intrastate service through FMCSA’s Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program, as discussed in Section
VII.D.1 below.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61955
the costs, if any, to manufacturers of
these lighter vehicles, as well as the
costs to the operators of these vehicles—
and, if applicable, the operators’
customers—resulting from the
additional travel time.
2. Proposed FMCSR
Consistent with the proposed FMVSS,
the proposed FMCSR would also apply
to each multipurpose passenger carrying
vehicle, truck, bus and school bus (to
the extent they fall under FMCSA
jurisdiction) with a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 11,793.4 kilograms
(26,000 pounds).
FMCSA requests comment on the cost
of enforcement of the proposed FMCSR,
training, new enforcement tools that
may be required, and the costs, if any,
to law enforcement partner agencies.
C. Proposed FMVSS Requirements
NHTSA’s general approach in
developing performance requirements
for speed limiting devices was to
identify key areas of performance
pertinent to the overall effectiveness of
speed limiting devices, thus reducing
the severity of crashes, as well as to
consider opportunities to harmonize the
proposal with other global regulations.
Considering that almost all vehicles
covered by the proposed FMVSS are
used for commercial purposes, the
proposed requirements also include
performance aspects to assist inspectors
in the verification of the speed limiting
device setting and pertinent speed
determination parameter settings.
The proposed requirements are
generally consistent with those in the
UNECE regulation for vehicles with
regard to limitation of their maximum
speed. These requirements are located
in part I of UNECE R89. While not all
the provisions of the UNECE standard
are pertinent to NHTSA’s proposed
regulation, we have evaluated this and
other standards and have proposed
specific text that best supports the
purpose of the proposed FMVSS.
1. Definitions
We are proposing three new
definitions with respect to the speed
limiting device. The first definition is
the set speed (Vset). The set speed is the
speed limiting device setting, or the
intended maximum cruising speed of
the vehicle and the speed reported
through the OBD connection. The speed
would be no greater than a speed to be
specified in a final rule implementing
this proposal. Additionally we are
proposing a definition for the actual
maximum average cruising speed of the
vehicle, which is referred to as the
stabilized speed (Vstab). Although we
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
61956
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
provide a detailed test procedure for
obtaining this speed, it is generally the
maximum speed that the vehicle can
achieve on level ground once the speed
control device has stabilized. The Vstab
speed is required to be equal to the Vset
speed. We seek comment on the ability
of manufacturers to build equipment
capable of meeting this requirement.
Finally, the maximum speed (Vmax) is
the maximum speed that the vehicle can
achieve during the transitional or
settling period prior to the vehicle speed
being stabilized. This is often referred to
as the overshoot in a control device. All
three of these vehicle speed definitions
have the same general meaning as those
used in the UNECE regulation.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Set Speed
NHTSA is proposing that, as
manufactured and sold, each vehicle’s
speed limiting device would be required
to have a set speed of no greater than a
speed to be specified in a final rule
implementing this proposal. Although
the petitions for rulemaking requested
that NHTSA permit manufacturers to set
the speed limiting device at any speed
up to and including 68 mph, the agency
has not proposed a specific set speed. In
Section X of this document and in the
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis,
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
and Draft Environmental Assessment
accompanying this proposal, NHTSA
has considered the benefits and costs of
60 mph, 65 mph, and 68 mph maximum
set speeds.
The agencies estimate that limiting
the speed of heavy vehicles to 60 mph
would save 162 to 498 lives annually,
limiting the speed of heavy vehicles to
65 mph would save 63 to 214 lives
annually, and limiting the speed of
heavy vehicles to 68 mph would save 27
to 96 lives annually. Although we
believe that the 60 mph alternative
would result in additional safety
benefits, we are not able to quantify the
60 mph alternative with the same
confidence as the 65 mph and 68 mph
alternatives.
NHTSA also examined maximum
posted speed limits for heavy vehicles.
The following table shows the
distribution of maximum posted speed
limits.
TABLE 5
Maximum posted speed limit
for certain larger vehicles
Number of
States
(including the
District of
Columbia)
55 mph ..................................
60 mph ..................................
65 mph ..................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
2
3
11
Jkt 238001
TABLE 5—Continued
Maximum posted speed limit
for certain larger vehicles
70
75
80
85
mph
mph
mph
mph
Number of
States
(including the
District of
Columbia)
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
21
9
4
1
The purpose of this joint rulemaking
is to save lives by reducing the severity
of crashes involving heavy vehicles.
NHTSA and FMCSA are proposing to
accomplish this by requiring that those
vehicles be equipped with speed
limiting devices. The proposed rules are
not intended as a mechanism to enforce
maximum speed limits set by States.
However, the agencies are mindful that
the proposed rules would limit the
travel speed of heavy vehicles below the
maximum posted speed limits in some
States. We have therefore considered the
distribution of State speed limits as one
factor in deciding the appropriate set
speed requirement. The above table
illustrates that the vast majority of
States (41 States) have maximum truck
speed limits between 65 mph and 75
mph, with the most common maximum
truck speed limits being 70 mph (21
States) and 65 mph (11 States).
We have also examined data from
EMA 50 showing the factory speed
limiting device settings for trucks 51
manufactured in 2010 and 2011. By far,
the single most common speed limiting
device setting for the 332,530 vehicles
manufactured during this period was 65
mph (24.8%—82,474 vehicles).
Trucking fleets generally custom order
truck tractors and request speed limiting
device settings from the manufacturer
based on the costs and benefits of
various maximum speeds. The high
number of vehicles set to 65 mph
suggests that this is a reasonable
maximum speed at which to efficiently
and safely transport goods, even if it is
not the optimum maximum speed for
every company.
NHTSA will weigh all of these factors
in choosing a maximum set speed for
newly manufactured large vehicles and
FMCSA will weigh these factors in
considering what maximum set speed at
which motor carriers would be required
to maintain speed limiters. The benefits
50 EMA, Vehicle Speed Limiter Settings—Ex
Factory 2010 & 2011 (Nov. 2011).
51 EMA indicated that the vehicles included in
the data consist of mostly heavy-duty trucks and
truck tractors with some medium-duty trucks. EMA
further indicated that the data included a
significant portion of the total heavy-duty
production since the start of 2010. See id.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
estimates indicate that substantially
more lives would be saved if heavy
vehicles are limited to 65 mph versus 68
mph with an additional increase in lives
saved if heavy vehicles are limited to 60
mph instead of 65 mph. However, the
agencies will also consider State speed
limits and the economic impact on
manufacturers and fleets including
current speed limiter settings and the
potential for harmonization with
Ontario and Quebec maximum set speed
requirements of 105 km/h (65 mph).
NHTSA and FMCSA will consider other
maximum set speeds both within that
range of speeds and outside of it.
NHTSA and FMCSA request comment
on what an appropriate maximum set
speed would be and why that speed
should be chosen over other possible
maximum set speeds.
We are proposing that the speed
limiting device be permitted to allow
normal acceleration control for the
purpose of gear changing. It is important
to provide acceleration control for the
purpose of gear changing in order to
maintain vehicle drivability. We note
that, as proposed, the speed-limiting
device must limit the speed of the
vehicle regardless of the gear selection.
Additionally, we are proposing that the
maximum speed (overshoot) not exceed
the stabilized speed by more than 5
percent. Likewise, the stabilized speed
must not exceed the set speed.
3. Tampering and Modification of the
Speed-Limiting Device
Unlike UNECE R89, NHTSA is not
proposing any requirement on
manufacturers to make the speed
limiting device tamper-resistant or to
restrict modification of the speed
limiting device settings. In other words,
although the proposed FMVSS would
require that the initial set speed be not
greater than a specified speed, a speed
limiting device could be capable of
adjustment above the specified speed
and still meet the requirements of the
proposed FMVSS. However, because the
proposed FMVSS would be reinforced
by the proposed FMCSR, we expect that
virtually all of these vehicles would be
limited to the specified speed.
As described below, NHTSA is
concerned about tampering and
modification of the speed limiting
device settings after a vehicle is sold.
After considering various means of
preventing these types of activities as
described below in the Regulatory
Alternatives section, the agency has
tentatively decided not to include this
type of requirement because of the costs
that such a requirement would impose
on manufacturers. NHTSA is also
concerned about the feasibility of
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
establishing performance requirements
that would be objective and effective in
resisting various methods of
tampering.52
In particular, the agency is concerned
about speed limiting device setting
adjustment and tampering that could
allow vehicles to travel faster than the
specified maximum set speed. The
agency is also concerned about post-sale
modification of the speed determination
parameters such that they do not match
the equipment on the vehicle or the
failure to modify the parameters after
replacing equipment. Either of these
actions could result in the vehicle being
capable of traveling at speeds higher
than the set speed. Finally, the agency
is concerned about potential tampering
with the speed limiting device, such as
hacking the ECU to disable the speedlimiting device, installing a device that
sends a false signal to the speed-limiting
device, or replacing the ECU with an
ECU that does not limit the speed.
In contrast, NHTSA believes that
some modifications should not be
restricted, like adjusting the set speed
below the maximum specified set speed
and changing the speed determination
parameter values as necessary to reflect
replacement equipment (e.g., equipping
the vehicle with different-size tires).
These types of modifications do not
interfere with, and may even facilitate,
vehicles continuing to operate at speeds
no greater than the maximum specified
set speed after they are sold.
Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to
require that speed-limiting devices have
some means of adjusting the speed
determination parameter values as
necessary to reflect replacement
equipment.
In order to deter those types of
activities that would allow a vehicle to
travel above the maximum specified set
speed, the proposed FMVSS would be
reinforced by the proposed FMCSR,
which would require motor carriers to
maintain the speed limiting devices in
52 The agency notes that some manufacturers may
voluntarily decide to install speed limiting systems
with features to restrict modification of the settings
and/or make the device tamper-resistant as part of
their compliance approach under the fuel efficiency
program for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.
Specifically, the fuel efficiency program for
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles permits
manufacturers to implement a fixed maximum
vehicle speed through a speed limiter feature and
use the maximum speed as an input for the model
used for purposes of certification to the standards
of the fuel efficiency program (76 FR 57106, 57155
(Sep. 15, 2011)). Although the speed limiter may be
adjustable, compliance is based on the highest
adjustable speed setting. Speed settings that are
protected by encrypted controls or passwords are
not considered when determining the highest
adjustable speed, and manufacturers are required to
use good engineering judgment to ensure that the
speed limiter is tamper resistant.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
accordance with the requirements of the
proposed FMVSS. For example, the
FMCSR would prohibit vehicle
operators from adjusting the set speed
above a maximum specified set speed.
To assist in verifying the performance
of the speed limiting device while the
vehicle is in use, NHTSA is proposing
that the vehicle set speed and the speed
determination parameters, such as tire
size and gear ratios, be readable through
the OBD connection. In addition to the
current speed limiting device settings,
NHTSA is proposing that the previous
two setting modifications (i.e., the
previous two modifications of the set
speed and the previous two
modifications of the speed
determination parameters) be readable
and include the time and date when
they were modified.
NHTSA seeks comment on the
proposed speed limiting device setting
readability requirements. For example,
is reporting the time and date of setting
modifications feasible or should some
other value be specified (e.g., mileage at
the time of modification)? What are
other appropriate speed determination
parameters, in addition to tire size and
gear ratios, that should be readable
through the OBD connection? Should
the agency specify additional
requirements to ensure that the speed
limiting device settings are readily
accessible through the OBD connection
and in an easy-to-understand format in
order to facilitate enforcement, and, if
so, what should those requirements be?
NHTSA also seeks comment on any
alternative approach that would allow
inspectors to verify the speed limiting
device settings at a reduced cost.
4. Test Procedure and Performance
Requirements
NHTSA is proposing a vehicle-level
test that involves the acceleration of the
vehicle on a test track. The agency is
proposing various track and weather
conditions, based on the widely utilized
UNECE regulation and other vehicle
tests that are conducted on test tracks,
to ensure the repeatability of testing.
The test begins with the vehicle
traveling at a steady speed that is below
the set speed. The vehicle is accelerated
using a full positive action on the
accelerator control. Such action is
maintained for at least 30 seconds after
the vehicle speed has been stabilized.
During the testing, the instantaneous
vehicle speed is recorded during the
testing in order to establish the curve of
speed versus time. A more detailed
summary of the proposed test procedure
follows.
Vehicle conditions. The vehicle
would be tested with the tire pressure
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61957
at the manufacturer’s specified pressure
in the unloaded weight condition with
a single operator.
Test Track conditions. The test
surface would be a surface suitable to
enable stabilization speed to be
maintained and be free from uneven
patches, with gradients not exceeding
2% and not varying by more than 1%
excluding camber effects. The test track
would be a paved surface free from
standing water, snow, or ice.
Ambient weather conditions. In order
to prevent inconsistency in the test, the
test would be performed when the mean
wind speed measured was less than 5
m/s and the temperature between 45 °F
and 104 °F. NHTSA is proposing a less
stringent wind speed condition than the
UNECE requirement in order to
maintain consistency with other FMVSS
track tests.
Test equipment. The speed
measurement would be independent of
the vehicle speedometer and accurate
within plus or minus 1 percent.
Running the test. The vehicle would
be run at a speed 10 km/h below the set
speed and would be accelerated as
much as possible using a full positive
action on the accelerator control. This
action would be maintained at least 30
seconds after the vehicle speed
stabilized. The instantaneous vehicle
speed would be recorded during the
testing in order to establish the curve of
speed versus time.
The speed versus time curve would
then be evaluated in order to find the
stabilized speed and the maximum
speed. Under the proposed
requirements, the maximum speed
achieved during the test must be no
greater than 5 percent of the stabilized
speed and the stabilized speed must not
exceed the set speed. The agency notes
that this proposed requirement is more
stringent than the UNECE requirement,
which specifies that the stabilized speed
must be within 5 percent or 5 km/h of
the set speed of the set speed. Adopting
the UNECE tolerance would mean that
a vehicle could have a stabilized speed
of 5 km/h (3 mph) above the specified
maximum set speed and still meet the
proposed requirements. NHTSA will
choose a maximum set sped based
primarily on safety considerations with
considerations also given to other
benefits including fuel savings and the
costs of the rule including opportunity
costs due to slower deliveries. Whatever
maximum speed is ultimately chosen, it
will be based on these considerations
and allowing vehicles to operate 5 km/
h (3 mph) above the maximum set speed
will lessen the benefits associated with
the chosen maximum set speed. NHTSA
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
seeks comment as to manufacturers’
ability to meet this requirement.
Additionally, NHTSA is not
proposing to include the acceleration
limits specified in the UNECE standard
of 0.5 m/s2 within the first ten seconds
and 0.2 m/s2 beyond the first ten
seconds (both measured over a time
greater than 0.1 s) of the vehicle first
reaching the set speed. We question if
these acceleration values are achievable
during an on-road test. Our calculations
indicate that such a requirement limits
the change in vehicle speed over any 0.1
second period to no more than 0.045
mph.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Given the extreme precision that
would be required both of the speed
control device and the test equipment,
NHTSA proposes not to include the
acceleration limits as specified in the
UNECE standard. We seek comment as
to the necessity of an acceleration limit
and, if needed, what a reasonable limit
could be.
D. Proposed FMCSR Requirements
FMCSA is proposing an FMCSR
requiring each CMV with a GVWR of
more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000
pounds) to 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 maximum
speed. This maximum speed will be
based on the maximum speed chosen by
NHTSA in a final rule implementing
this proposal. Motor carriers operating
such vehicles in interstate commerce
would be required to maintain the speed
limiting devices for the service life of
the vehicle.
1. Enforcement
FMCSA’s roadside enforcement
activities are limited by the small size
of its staff. The Agency therefore relies
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
on its State partners for enforcement of
its safety rules at the roadside. Through
the Agency’s Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program (MCSAP), FMCSA
provides Federal grants to the States to
support the adoption and enforcement
of compatible safety regulations.
Therefore, FMCSA’s adoption of a rule
requiring interstate motor carriers to
maintain speed limiting devices would
be accompanied by the States’ adoption
of compatible rules applicable to both
interstate and intrastate motor carriers
pursuant to 49 CFR part 350.
The inclusion of the OBD feature for
the speed limiting device would enable
FMCSA and its State partners to enforce
the proposed rule during roadside
inspections, at the discretion of the
Agency and its State partners. The
enforcement of the requirements could
be conducted in a targeted manner,
periodically or randomly to provide an
effective deterrent to carriers tampering
with or disabling the device to avoid the
need for the Agency and its State
partners to consider changes to the
standard inspection procedures or
increases in the amount of time needed
to complete a roadside inspection.
FMCSA is again seeking comment and
information regarding the cost of
enforcement of the proposed FMCSR,
training, new enforcement tools that
may be required, and the costs, if any,
to law enforcement partner agencies.
In addition, State law enforcement
officials responsible for motor carrier
safety oversight could cite CMV drivers
for violations of the speed limiting
device requirements as part of traffic
enforcement activities. If the vehicle is
observed to be operating in excess of a
posted speed limit greater than the
maximum specified set speed, and the
vehicle was manufactured on or after
the effective date of the proposed rule,
the speeding violation would then serve
as prima facie evidence that the speed
limiting device was inoperative, or the
setting altered. And, the driver could be
subject both to a speeding ticket and
motor carrier safety citation for
operating a CMV with a speed limiting
device that failed to meet the
requirements of the State’s version of
the Federal requirement. Conversely, if
the vehicle were clocked at the
maximum specified set speed in a 50mph zone, the driver could be ticketed
for speeding, but the officer would make
no assumption about the effectiveness of
the speed limiting device.
VIII. Regulatory Alternatives
In deciding on the approach proposed
in this NPRM, NHTSA and FMCSA
have examined the following
alternatives to this proposal.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
A. Other Technologies Limiting Speed
NHTSA also requests comment on the
feasibility of technologies which would
limit the speed of the vehicle to the
speed limit of the road, as an alternative
option to the a requirement limiting
vehicle speed to a specified set speed.
These technologies might include a
GPS, vision system, vehicle to
infrastructure communication, or some
other autonomous vehicle technology.
This could have the effect of reducing
fatalities while limiting the economic
effects of this rule on roads that have a
posted speed above the maximum set
speed. Heavy vehicle operators could
also potentially choose between
vehicles equipped with speed limiting
devices set to a specified maximum set
speed and vehicles with GPS-based,
vision based, or vehicle-toinfrastructure-based, or other
autonomous vehicle technology devices
depending on their needs.
Our preliminary conclusion is that
requiring these technologies to limit
vehicle speed would not be feasible
and/or cost-effective at this time, but the
agencies are seeking comments from the
public on this preliminary conclusion.
The agencies would not publish a final
rule requiring speed limiters using these
technologies without first publishing
another proposed rule addressing them.
The agencies also request comment on
whether they should consider allowing
GPS-based speed limiters, which adjust
to the actual speed limits on roads, to
be used as an alternative means of
compliance if conventional speed
limiters are required.
The agencies understand that some
trucking fleets use similar devices for
monitoring purposes, but we have
several questions about regulating a
GPS-based, vision based, or vehicle-toinfrastructure-based device, and we
invite comments on the following areas:
• What would be the costs associated
with installing and maintaining a GPSbased, vision based, or vehicle-toinfrastructure-based speed limiting
device?
• How easy would it be for a driver
to interfere with the ability to receive
speed limit information without
detection and thereby travel faster than
the posted speed limit? Are there
tamper-resistant technologies available
to limit such action?
• What is the best method for
determining the posted speed limit on a
given section of highway? For GPSbased systems, would the speed map
need to be managed federally and made
available to the vehicle during operation
or could a third-party map be usable
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
EP07SE16.029</GPH>
61958
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
considering the certification
requirement?
• How would such a device handle
posted speed changes such as dual day/
night speed limits and construction
zones?
• Is the current GPS coverage
sufficient for such a device? How would
temporary coverage outages be
addressed for enforcement purposes?
• What would be the framework for a
compliance test procedure?
• What are the limitations of the
technologies in applications such as
false positives?
• Should a speed-limiting device that
is correlated to the highway speed still
have a set speed lower than the posted
speed limit?
B. Tampering
As discussed above, at this time
NHTSA is proposing to require a speed
limiting device that reports the last two
modifications of the set speed and the
last two modifications of the speed
determination parameters, along with
the time and date of the modifications.
NHTSA is not proposing any
requirement on manufacturers to make
the speed limiting device tamper
resistant or to restrict modification of
the speed limiting device settings. In
other words, although the proposed
FMVSS would require that the initial set
speed be not greater than a maximum
specified speed, a speed limiting device
could be capable of adjustment above
the maximum specified speed and still
be compliant with the proposed
FMVSS.
Although NHTSA is concerned about
tampering and modification of the speed
limiting device settings after a vehicle is
sold, after considering various means of
preventing these type of activities the
agency has tentatively decided not to
include a requirement to prevent
tampering because of the costs that such
requirements would impose on
manufacturers and because we are
concerned about the feasibility of
establishing performance requirements
that would be objective and effective in
resisting various methods of tampering.
In general, there are several design
approaches for restricting modification
of the speed limiting device settings
and/or making the ECU tamper
resistant, namely through passwords
(Pass Code) and coding of the device
using hardware (Hard Code). The Pass
Code design approach has two options.
The first Pass Code option is to set the
speed limiting device setting at the OEM
factory. With the first Pass Code option,
subsequent owners would be able to
legitimately change the setting if vehicle
components that would directly affect
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
the speed limiting device performance
are altered and recalibration is
necessary. However, speed limiting
devices with the first Pass Code option
would not be tamper resistant. The
second option is to set speed limiting
device setting at the OEM factory and
make it ‘‘factory password protected.’’
With the second Pass Code option,
vehicle owners would have to make a
formal request to either the vehicle or
engine manufacturers to change the
setting. According to EMA, if a vehicle
owner needed to make any subsequent
changes, it would cost approximately
$300 per vehicle with the second Pass
Code option. The Hard Code design
approach is to hardcode the speed
limiting device set speed in the ECU,
based on characteristics of each vehicle
produced. The Hard Code option would
eliminate all possibilities of subsequent
changes unless the entire ECU is
replaced. With this approach,
subsequent ECU changes would cost
owners $2,000 or more.53
In addition to the costs to
manufacturers and vehicle owners that
would result, such requirements would
place an unrealistic burden on
manufacturers to certify that equipment
will resist methods of tampering that
may be unknown at the time of
certification. Although a basic password
requirement may seem straightforward,
establishing specific objective
performance requirements for a
password device that resists hacking
would be challenging, and such
requirements may not ultimately
achieve the desired outcome of
preventing tampering. Additionally,
hacking methods that are unknown to
the agency or to manufacturers could
compromise such a tamper-resistant
device. In the future, it may be possible
to fool even a speed-limiting device that
is hard coded into the ECU by providing
false input signal.
NHTSA is also concerned that such
devices could interfere with the types of
modifications that NHTSA believes
should not be restricted, like adjusting
the set speed within the range of speeds
up to the maximum specified set speed
and changing the speed determination
parameter values as necessary to reflect
replacement equipment (e.g., equipping
the vehicle with different-size tires).
These types of modifications do not
interfere with, and may even facilitate,
vehicles continuing to operate at speeds
no greater than the maximum specified
set speed after they are sold.
53 Truck Manufacturers Association (EMA),
‘‘Informational Meeting with NHTSA Speed Limiter
Tamperproofing’’, July 9, 2007, NHTSA–2007–
26851–3841.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61959
Given these concerns and the
additional costs to vehicle
manufacturers from installing devices
that restrict modification of the speed
limiting device settings and/or are
tamper-resistant, NHTSA is not
proposing to include these
requirements. However, we invite
comment on these various means of
restricting modification of the speed
limiting device, including their
effectiveness and cost, as well as
whether objective performance
requirements can be established.
FMCSA proposes to enforce NHTSA’s
speed limiting device requirements for
vehicles manufactured after the effective
date of the FMVSS. Specifically, drivers
and carriers would be subject to Federal
civil penalties if they are determined to
have operated CMVs with a GVWR of
more than 26,000 pounds in interstate
commerce when the speed limiting
device is (1) not functioning, or (2) set
at a maximum speed in excess of the
maximum specified set speed. They
would be subject to Federal civil
penalties of up to $2,750 for drivers and
up to $11,000 for employers who allow
or require drivers to operate CMVs with
speed limiting devices set at speeds
greater than the maximum specified set
speed.
If a speed limiting device is not
functioning, drivers and carriers could
avoid violations by driving no faster
than the maximum specified set speed
until the vehicle is repaired. Under 49
CFR part 396, drivers are required to
prepare driver vehicle inspection
reports (DVIRs) which document all
defects or deficiencies observed by or
reported to the driver during the work
day. At any time the driver observes that
the vehicle can exceed the maximum
specified set speed, he or she should
document the problem on the DVIR,
which triggers a duty on the part of the
motor carrier, upon receipt of the report,
to correct the problem.
We are interested in receiving
comments on ways to read the set speed
and speed determination parameters
other than through the OBD connection.
Comments should consider ways to
reduce the equipment cost required for
enforcement officials based on roadside
and facility-based enforcement
programs.
C. Test Procedures
NHTSA is proposing a test procedure
that is similar to that in the UNECE R89
regulation, which is widely used in
many parts of the world, as opposed to
an independent test track procedure. We
believe this approach limits the cost of
certification to manufacturers and
increases their ability to use common
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
61960
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
engineering designs already included in
the ECUs installed on vehicles around
the world.
The European standard includes the
additional testing methods of vehicle
dynamometer and engine dynamometer.
These test methods may provide
additional flexibility for manufacturers
that are unable to use a test track, or
during unfair weather conditions. We
seek comment on whether NHTSA
should consider these test methods as
an option to our proposed track test.
D. Electromagnetic Interference
Unlike the UNECE regulation, NHTSA
has chosen not to include an
electromagnetic disturbance
requirement in the proposed FMVSS.
The agency is concerned that speed
limiting devices, as well as all safety
critical electronic equipment, operate
within the installed environment with
respect to electromagnetic interference
(EMI). However, if the agency finds a
safety need to pursue EMI requirements,
it will likely be conducted in a broad
way that covers various electronic
devices. At this time, the agency does
not intend to apply EMI requirements
on an ad hoc basis to specific
regulations. The agency seeks comment
on whether the EMI requirements of the
UNECE regulation should be included
in the FMVSS.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
IX. Other Issues
A. Retrofitting
Road Safe America requested in its
petition that all trucks manufactured
after 1990 be required to be equipped
with electronic speed governors.
NHTSA is again seeking comment and
information regarding the possibility of
requiring all multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses manufactured
after 1990 with a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 11,793.4 kg (26,000
pounds) to be retrofitted with electronic
speed limiters.
The Secretary of Transportation has
authority to promulgate safety standards
for ‘‘commercial motor vehicles and
equipment subsequent to initial
manufacture.’’ 54 The Office of the
Secretary has delegated authority to
NHTSA to: ‘‘promulgate safety
standards for commercial motor
vehicles and equipment subsequent to
initial manufacture when the standards
are based upon and similar to a
[FMVSS] promulgated, either
simultaneously or previously, under
chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.’’ 55
54 Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999,
Pub. L. 106–159, 101(f), 113 Stat. 1748 (Dec. 9,
1999).
55 49 CFR 1.95(c).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Additionally, FMCSA is authorized to
enforce the safety standards applicable
to CMVs operating in interstate
commerce.56 We request information on
several issues relating to retrofitting
used vehicles.
We seek to know more about the
technical and economic feasibility of a
retrofit requirement. In its comment to
our 2007 Request for Comments, EMA
expressed concern about retrofitting all
post-1990 trucks. EMA’s first concern
related to retrofitting vehicles
manufactured from 1990 to
approximately 1994 to 1996, which
were frequently equipped with
mechanically controlled engines with
mechanical speed limiting devices.
EMA indicated that it would be
impractical to retrofit these vehicles
with modern ECUs and they estimated
that it would cost $1,000 to $1,500 per
vehicle to retrofit those vehicles
currently without ECUs with a
mechanical speed limiting device.
EMA’s second concern related to
retrofitting ECU-equipped vehicles (i.e.
post 1994 to1996 vehicles) with tamperproof speed limiting devices. EMA
described three approaches to
retrofitting these vehicles with varying
degrees of tamper protection. The
estimated costs of these retrofit
approaches ranged from $100 to $2,000
per vehicle, and EMA estimated that
one million vehicles would have to be
retrofitted. Additionally, two of the
three approaches would require
redesigning the software and/or
hardware of each engine model and
would entail additional costs ranging
from $2,500,000 to $10,000,000 per
engine model. EMA estimated there are
40 engine control devices from 1990 to
the present that would have to be
modified.
Hino Motors submitted a comment
stating that it does not support the
retrofitting of trucks that were
manufactured with mechanically
controlled engine devices, noting that it
manufactured trucks with mechanically
controlled engine devices through the
model year 2003. The company stated
that retrofitting older mechanically
controlled engine devices with
electronic controls would be costly to
vehicle owners.
AAA requested that the agency
explore the idea of retrofitting trucks
currently on the road.
Based on the comments received,
NHTSA is concerned that requiring the
retrofitting of CMVs with speed limiting
devices could be costly. Further, we
understand that requiring retrofitted
vehicles to meet every aspect of the
56 49
PO 00000
U.S.C. 31136(a).
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
performance requirements set forth in
this proposal would impose additional
costs beyond the costs associated with
setting the speed limit. However, a
number of these requirements are
designed to assist enforcement
personnel in the verification of the
speed limiting device setting and
pertinent vehicle parameter settings,
and both NHTSA and FMCSA are
concerned about the practicability of
roadside enforcement if these were not
included in any retrofit requirements.
Given the agencies’ concerns about
technical feasibility, cost, enforcement,
and impacts on small businesses, we are
seeking public comment to improve our
understanding of the real-world impact
of implementing a speed limiting device
retrofit requirement on existing vehicles
and whether it is appropriate to have
different requirements for these
vehicles.
Retrofit Requirements
Please explain why the agency should
(or should not) consider requiring a
speed limiting device requirement for
existing heavy vehicles. Please discuss:
a. What portions of the existing heavy
vehicle fleet are not equipped with
speed limiting devices, are equipped
with mechanical speed limiting devices,
or are equipped with ECUs? The
agencies are also seeking this type of
information for the fleets owned by
small businesses.
b. How old are vehicles in each of
these categories and what are their
expected lifetimes? The agencies are
also seeking this type of information for
the fleets owned by small businesses.
c. In what model year did
manufacturers cease manufacturing
vehicles equipped with mechanically
controlled engines?
d. Is it technically feasible to retrofit
a vehicle equipped with a mechanically
controlled engine with an ECU and if
feasible what would be the cost to do
so?
e. What technically feasible
approaches, if any, are there to retrofit
mechanical speed limiting devices so
that they have some level of tamper
resistance, and what are the costs of
such approaches?
f. What technologies are available to
increase the tamper resistance of speed
limiting devices in ECUs and what
would be the cost to retrofit existing
vehicles with these technologies?
As an alternative to a retrofit
requirement, the agencies request
comment on whether to extend the set
speed requirement to all CMVs with a
GVWR of more than 26,000 pounds that
are already equipped with a speed
limiting device and how such a
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
requirement would impact our cost
benefit analysis. As explained
throughout this document, all vehicles
with electronic engine control units
(ECUs) are generally electronically
speed governed to prevent engine or
other damage to the vehicle, and ECUs
have been installed in most heavy
trucks since 1999. Additionally, a
number of older vehicles are equipped
with mechanical speed limiting devices.
Accordingly, in order to realize the
benefits associated with limiting heavy
vehicles’ speed in a shorter timeframe
without imposing any additional
equipment costs, the agencies request
comment on whether to require that the
speed limiting devices in these older
CMVs be set to a speed not greater than
a maximum specified set speed.
B. Lead Time
If the proposed FMVSS is established,
NHTSA is proposing a compliance date
of the first September 1 three years after
publication of a final rule. For
illustration purposes, the proposed
regulatory text uses the date of
September 1, 2020. We believe that this
lead time is appropriate as some design,
testing, and development will be
necessary to certify compliance to the
new requirements. Three years is also
consistent with the MCSAP time period
for States to adopt regulations consistent
with FMCSA standards.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
X. Overview of Benefits and Costs
Based on our review of the available
data, if heavy vehicles were limited, it
would reduce the severity of crashes
involving these vehicles and reduce the
resulting fatalities and injuries. The
proposed rules would require that each
vehicle, as manufactured and sold, have
its speed limiting device set to a speed
not greater than a maximum specified
set speed, and that motor carriers
maintain the set speed at a speed not
greater than the maximum specified set
speed. We expect that, as a result of this
joint rulemaking, virtually all of these
vehicles would be limited to that speed.
In order to explore the benefits and
costs of requiring speed limiters to be
set at a variety of speeds, we have
estimated the benefits and costs
assuming that the affected vehicles are
limited to speeds no greater than 60
mph, 65 mph, and 68 mph.
A. Benefits
1. Safety Benefits
As explained above, most studies
examining the relationship between
travel speed and crash severity have
concluded that the severity of a crash
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
increases with increased travel speed.57
The relationship between travel speed
and avoiding crashes is less certain, as
described in detail in NHTSA’s 1991
Report to Congress 58 and as indicated
by the differing opinions of commenters
who responded to the 2007 Request for
Comments. The FMCSA study cited
above showed a reduced crash risk with
speed limiting devices. However, the
lack of adequate exposure data, in terms
of miles driven, makes it difficult to
estimate the safety benefits of crashes
avoided.
Commenters who opposed the ATA
and Road Safe petitions contend that the
creation of speed differentials between
cars and heavy vehicles would increase
crash risk. There have been a number of
studies conducted on the impact of
speed differentials between cars and
heavy vehicles and whether differential
speeds increase vehicle interactions and
crash risk. Two studies, one conducted
by the Virginia Transportation Research
Council (VTRC) and disseminated under
sponsorship of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, and the other conducted
by the University of Idaho, observed no
consistent safety effects of differential
speed limits compared to uniform speed
limits.59 Other studies have found an
increased crash risk when vehicles
deviate from the mean speed, though
those studies’ conclusions differed as to
the magnitude of the deviation from the
mean speed that was associated with an
increased crash risk. A full discussion of
these studies can be found in the PRIA.
After considering this research and
the difficulty in estimating the effect of
speed limiting devices on crash risk, the
agencies have chosen not to include an
estimate of crashes avoided in the PRIA
and to only estimate the benefits of
reducing crash severity. Although this
approach is conservative and the
agencies believe that speed limiting
devices will likely reduce both the
severity and risk of crashes, the agencies
have greater confidence that the
estimated benefits described below will
be fully realized because, by focusing on
crash severity, the agencies are able to
isolate more effectively the effects of
57 Johnson, Steven L. & Pawar, Naveen, MackBlackwell Rural Transportation Center, Cost-Benefit
Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile Speed Limits
Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways, MBTC
2048 (Nov. 2005).
58 NHTSA, Commercial Motor Vehicle Speed
Control Safety, DOT HS 807 725 (May 1991).
59 VTRC, The Safety Impacts of Differential Speed
Limits on Rural Interstate Highways, FHWA–HRT–
04–156, September 2004; Idaho Transportation
Department Planning Division. Evaluation of the
Impacts of Reducing Truck Speeds on Interstate
Highways in Idaho, -Phase III, Final Report Dec.,
2000, National Institute for Advanced
Transportation Technology University of Idaho.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61961
speed reduction on safety. We invite
public comment on these
determinations and any additional
information or studies related to the
impact of speed limiting devices on
crash avoidance that we should
consider in estimating the effect of this
rulemaking.
Using Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) and National
Automotive Sampling System General
Estimates System (NASS GES) crash
data over the 10-year period between
2004 and 2013, the agencies examined
crashes involving heavy vehicles (i.e.,
vehicles with a GVWR of over 11,793.4
kg (26,000 pounds)) on roads with
posted speed limits of 55 mph or above.
The agency focused on crashes in which
the speed of the heavy vehicle likely
contributed to the severity of the crash
(e.g., single vehicle crashes, crashes in
which the heavy vehicle was the
striking vehicle. The agencies estimated
that these crashes resulted in 10,440
fatalities 60 from 2004 to 2013
(approximately 1,044 annually).
Among the 10,440 fatalities, 9,747
resulted from crashes involving
combination trucks, 442 resulted from
crashes involving single unit trucks and
the remaining 251 resulted from crashes
involving buses.
In order to estimate the safety
benefits,61 we calculated the risk that a
heavy vehicle will be involved in a
crash that results in a fatality versus a
crash that results in an injury or
property damage on roads with posted
speed limits of 55 mph and higher,
which we refer to as the ‘‘vehicle-based
model.’’ 62 Similarly, we calculated the
risk that a person would suffer fatal
injury in a crash involving a heavy
vehicle versus a crash that would
involve nonfatal injury or property
damage only on roads with posted
speed limits of 55 mph or higher, which
we refer to as the ‘‘person-based
model.’’ We then used the probability of
fatal crash (or odds ratio) to derive the
percent reduction in the fatal crash rate
60 The fatality numbers were also adjusted to
reflect the effect of new heavy vehicle requirements
that have been adopted by NHTSA within the last
several years (e.g., the final rule adopting seat belt
requirements for passenger seats in buses (78 FR
70415 (Nov. 25, 2013), the final rule to adopt
electronic stability control requirements for heavy
vehicles (80 FR 36049 (June 23, 2015)).
61 For a full discussion of the agency’s safety
benefits methodology, please consult the PRIA.
62 The fatal crash rate represents the ratio of the
number of vehicles involved in fatal crashes to the
total number of vehicles involved in all policereported crashes. This value is calculated using the
crash data from the FARS & GES databases. For
example, if there are 100 vehicles involved in
police-reported crashes, and 10 of those vehicles are
involved in fatal crashes, the fatal crash rate is 1/
10 or 0.1.
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
61962
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
that would result from reducing the
travel speed of heavy vehicles traveling
at speeds above a set speed to the set
speed (i.e., how would the probability of
a heavy vehicle crash being fatal change
if the vehicles were limited to a set
speed?). Using this method, we estimate
that limiting heavy vehicles to 68 mph
would save 27 to 96 lives annually,
limiting heavy vehicles to 65 mph
would save 63 to 214 lives annually,
and limiting heavy vehicles to 60 mph
would save 162 to 498 lives annually.63
Although we believe that the 60 mph
alternative would result in additional
safety benefits, we are not able to
quantify the 60 mph alternative with the
same confidence as the 65 mph and 68
mph alternatives.
We have estimated the number of
injuries that would be prevented using
quality of life plus a valuation of lost
material consumption that is
represented by measuring consumers’
after-tax lost productivity. Additionally,
there are costs to society incurred as a
result of an injury or fatality that are
separate from the value of the life saved/
injury prevented. Benefits occur from
reducing these economic costs of
crashes by reducing the number of
people injured or killed. These items
include: reducing costs for medical care,
emergency services, insurance
administrative costs, workplace costs,
and legal costs. These monetized
benefits are reflected in Table 7 below.
In addition to the safety benefits, this
rule would result in reduced property
damage as a result of making crashes
less severe.
the ratio of fatalities to injuries resulting
from certain crashes involving
combination trucks.64 This method uses
the number of lives saved to estimate
the corresponding number of injuries
prevented.
Based on range of fatalities prevented,
this rulemaking would prevent 179 to
551 serious injuries 65 and 3,356 to
10,306 minor injuries with a maximum
set speed of 60 mph, 70 to 236 serious
injuries and 1,299 to 4,535 minor
injuries with a maximum set speed of 65
mph, and 30 to 106 serious injuries and
560 to 1,987 minor injuries with a
maximum set speed of 68 mph.
Fatality and injury benefits are
monetized in two parts. The first part is
based on the value of a statistical life
(VSL). Value-of-life measurements
inherently include a value for lost
TABLE 6—ANNUAL FATALITIES PREVENTED SPEED LIMITING DEVICES FOR COMBINATION TRUCKS, SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS
AND BUSES
60 mph
65 mph
68 mph
Type
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Combination trucks ..................................
Single-unit trucks .....................................
Buses .......................................................
159
3
0
472
14
12
62
1
0
204
5
5
27
0
0
92
2
2
Total lives saved ...............................
162
498
63
214
27
96
* The numbers were rounded to the nearest integer.
TABLE 7—BENEFITS FROM REDUCED FATALITIES, INJURIES, AND PROPERTY DAMAGE SAVINGS, 7% DISCOUNT
[In millions of 2013 dollars]
60 mph
65 mph
68 mph
Benefits
Low estimate
High estimate
Low estimate
High estimate
Low estimate
High estimate
Combination Trucks .................................
Single-unit trucks .....................................
Buses .......................................................
$1,819
30
0
$5,382
155
139
$706
10
0
$2,322
53
58
$304
4
0
$1,048
21
24
Total ..................................................
1,849
5,676
716
2,433
308
1,093
In addition to the safety benefits, the
proposed rules would result in a
reduction in fuel consumption due to
increased fuel efficiency. To determine
the fuel savings, the agencies used
NASS GES and FARS data to estimate
VMT on different types of roads (e.g., 55
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Fuel Saving Benefits
mph roads, 60 mph roads, etc.) and
State data to estimate the actual travel
speeds of heavy vehicles on those roads.
The agencies separately calculated fuel
savings based on current regulatory
requirements and the proposed phase 2
medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency
rules.66 The agencies only estimated
fuel savings for 65 mph and 68 mph
speed limiters. The fuel savings for 60
mph speed limiters are assumed to be
equal to the fuel savings from 65 mph
speed limiters. The medium- and heavyduty fuel efficiency program accounts
for speed limiters set to speeds less than
65 mph in assessing compliance with
the fuel economy standards.67
63 The number of lives saved for each category of
crashes is rounded to the nearest integer, while the
total lives saved is calculated using the unrounded
estimates of lives saved for each category of crashes.
This creates a slight discrepancy between the total
lives saved and the sum of the rounded estimates
of lives saved for each crash category.
64 Specifically, the agencies relied on data from
crashes involving combination trucks striking other
vehicles from behind to determine the fatality-toinjury ratio. The agencies used this data because the
agencies believe that these are the types of crashes
(and injuries) that are most likely to be affected by
the proposed speed-limiting requirements. As
discussed throughout the notice, combination truck
crashes make up the vast majority of the target
population, and the agency believes that those
crashes in which a heavy vehicle hits another
vehicle from behind are the most common type that
would be affected by this rulemaking.
65 The fatality-to-injury ratios for AIS 3, AIS 4,
and AIS 5 injuries coincidentally add up to 1.
Accordingly, the number of serious injuries
prevented (AIS 3–5) is estimated to be equivalent
to the number of fatalities. Please consult the PRIA
for additional discussion on how the agencies
estimated the injuries prevented.
66 See 80 FR 40,137 (July 13, 2015).
67 The agency has considered the effect of the
medium- and heavy-vehicle fuel efficiency program
on the fuel savings estimates for this proposal to
ensure that the agency does not include fuel savings
already accounted for in the heavy vehicle fuel
efficiency final rule if manufacturers use speed
limiting systems that satisfy the requirements of
both rules. This issue is fully addressed below in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
61963
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
The agencies predictions for fuel
savings and total benefits, including
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
reduction.68
TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF FUEL SAVINGS SPEED LIMITING DEVICES
[In millions] *
Fuel saved,
65 mph (in
millions of
gallons)
Vehicle type
Monetized
fuel savings,
65 mph
(in
millions of
2013 dollars)
Fuel saved,
68 mph
(in
millions of
gallons)
Monetized
fuel savings,
68 mph
(in
millions of
2013 dollars)
Estimate Based on Current Regulatory Requirements ...
Combination Trucks ......
Single Unit Trucks .........
Buses ............................
377
36
9
$1,220
113
30
169
15
4
$545
48
12
Total ..........................................................................
.......................................
423
1,363
188
605
Estimate Based on Proposed Phase 2 Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Program Requirements.
Combination Trucks ......
Single Unit Trucks .........
Buses ............................
304
32
8
$984
98
26
136
13
3
$440
41
11
Total ..........................................................................
.......................................
344
1,108
153
492
* The numbers were rounded to the nearest integer.
TABLE 9—ANNUAL TOTAL BENEFITS, 7% DISCOUNT
[In millions of 2013 dollars] *
60 mph
65 mph
68 mph
Benefits
High estimate
Low estimate
Low estimate
High estimate
Low estimate
High estimate
Combination Trucks .................................
Single-unit trucks .....................................
Buses .......................................................
$2,571
105
20
$6,134
230
159
$1,458
85
21
$3,074
128
79
$640
36
8
$1,384
53
32
Total ..................................................
2,695
6,522
1,564
3,281
684
1,469
* Numbers were rounded to the nearest integer.
B. Costs
For manufacturers, NHTSA expects
the costs associated with the proposed
FMVSS to be insignificant for new
heavy vehicles because these vehicles
already use ECUs for engine control.
Regarding compliance test costs, truck
manufacturers can use any appropriate
method to certify to the performance
requirements, including engineering
analysis/calculation, computer
simulation, and track testing. The
agency believes that manufacturers will
not need any tests additional to those
they and their suppliers are currently
2. Societal Costs Associated With the
Operation of Heavy Vehicles
This joint rulemaking would impose
societal costs since the proposed speed
setting will decrease the travel speed for
trucks currently traveling faster than the
maximum specified set speed (the same
work will be done, but it will take
longer to do it). This will result in
increased travel time and potentially
longer delivery times and a loss of a
national resource. We have also
accounted for a loss of value of goods
as a result of increased travel time. In
order to compensate for the increased
travel time, trucking and bus companies
would need to require current operators
drive longer hours (within hours of
service limits), hire additional
operators, and use team driving
strategies in some cases. We estimate
the cost of this added time to be $1,534
million annually for 60 mph speed
limiters, $514 million annually for 65
mph speed limiters, and $206 million
annually for 68 mph speed limiters
assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
However, the estimated fuel savings
offset these costs. In other words, even
without considering the safety benefits,
this joint rulemaking would be cost
beneficial.69
the agencies’ discussion of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. The agency has also adjusted the
baseline fuel economy to account for the
improvements to fuel economy as a result of the
medium- and heavy-vehicle fuel efficiency
program. The agency has also considered the effects
of improvement in fuel economy as a result of the
medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency program
and has taken account of them in fuel savings
estimates. These issues are discussed in detail in
the PRIA.
68 To determine the benefits of reduced GHG
emissions, the agencies estimated the benefits
associated with four different values of a one metric
ton carbon dioxide reduction (model average at
2.5% discount rate, 3%, and 5%; 95th percentile at
3%). These values were developed by an
interagency working group to allow agencies to
incorporate the social benefits of reducing carbon
dioxide emissions into their cost-benefit analyses.
See, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Carbon, United States Government, Technical
Support Document: Technical Update of the Social
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866 (rev. Nov. 2013),
available at, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-updatesocial-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-
analysis.pdf. The agencies have used the 3 percent
discount rate value, which the interagency group
deemed as the central value, in the primary costbenefit analysis. For internal consistency, the
annual benefits are discounted back to net present
value using the same discount rate as the social cost
of carbon estimate (3 percent) rather than 3 percent
and 7 percent. A complete list of values for the four
estimates (model average at 2.5% discount rate, 3%,
and 5%; 95th percentile at 3%) is included in the
PRIA.
69 Additionally, although the purpose of this
rulemaking is to reduce the severity of heavy
conducting to verify the performance
specifications.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Heavy Vehicle Manufacturers
Continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
61964
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
3. Impacts on Small Trucking and
Motorcoach Businesses
Although the proposed rules would
apply to all heavy vehicles, the
agencies’ analysis indicates that this
joint rulemaking could put owneroperators and small fleet owners,
particularly those not using team
driving strategies, at a disadvantage in
some circumstances. Currently, there
are transport jobs that small trucking
companies could bid on and arrive one
day sooner compared to a firm that
already voluntarily uses a speed
limiting device, if the small trucking
company drives at 75 mph, which is the
speed limit on some roads. Thus, it is
likely that there are some jobs where
there is an apparent competitive
advantage to being able to drive faster.
Some small businesses currently
traveling at higher speeds might not be
able to expand quickly enough to make
the extra trips necessary to compensate
for the increased travel times resulting
from limiting their speed. Instead of
these small independent trucking
companies buying new trucks and/or
hiring additional drivers, we expect that
large trucking companies would absorb
the additional cargo with their reserve
capacity of trucks and drivers.
Although the agencies do not expect
additional costs to the trucking industry
as a whole in the near future from this
rulemaking, small trucking companies,
especially independent owneroperators, would be less profitable with
speed limiting devices set. We have very
limited data to predict how the affected
owner-operators would deal with the
increase in delivery times. We expect
that some of the affected owneroperators would work for trucking
companies as independent contractors.
If all of the affected owner-operators
worked for trucking companies as
independent contractors, they would
lose $54 million in labor income. Our
data is even more limited for entities
that operate buses, but we expect that
some small motorcoach companies may
have to hire additional drivers to
compensate for the increased travel
times resulting from speed limiting
devices.
We request comment on the agencies’
assumptions regarding how this
rulemaking would affect small heavy
vehicle operators, and we request
comment on the type and magnitude of
that effect.
Although this rulemaking is expected
to result in large fuel savings to the
trucking industry as a whole, the
agencies have limited data on the travel
speeds of and vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) by trucks operated by small
companies as compared to trucks
operated by large companies.
Accordingly, it is difficult to estimate
the relative fuel savings for small
companies. However, we have anecdotal
evidence suggesting that the VMT by
trucks operated by small companies is
30 percent of the total VMT by all
commercial vehicles. Assuming that
there is no difference in travel speed
between trucks operated by small
companies and trucks operated by large
companies, 30 percent of the fuel
savings resulting from the proposed rule
would be realized by small trucking
companies. In order to improve our
estimate, which, as mentioned above, is
based on limited data and certain
assumptions, the agencies request
comments on VMT and vehicle travel
speed for different sizes of truck carriers
and bus companies.
C. Net Impact
These proposed rules are cost
beneficial. Combining the value of the
ELS, the property savings, and the fuel
savings, the total benefits are greater
than the estimated cost, even assuming
that the proposed rule would result in
the low benefits estimate.
TABLE 11—OVERALL NET BENEFITS TO HEAVY VEHICLE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATED WITH SPEED LIMITERS, 7% DISCOUNT
[In millions, 2013 dollars] *
60 mph
Vehicle
Mininum
Total Benefits ...........................................
Total Costs ...............................................
Net Benefit ...............................................
$2,695
1,561
1,136
65 mph
Maximum
Mininum
6,522
1,561
4,964
68 mph
Maximum
1,564
523
1,039
3,281
523
2,757
Mininum
684
209
475
Maximum
1,469
209
1,260
* The estimates may not add up precisely due to rounding
For further explanation of the
estimated benefits and costs, see the
PRIA provided in the docket for this
proposal.
XI. Public Participation
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
How do I prepare and submit
comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your
comments.
vehicle crashes and not to enforce posted speed
limits, limiting heavy vehicle speed would likely
drastically reduce the amount of speeding citations
received by heavy vehicle operators on roads with
posted speed limits of 65 mph and greater. These
citations involve a number of economic effects on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:27 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Your comments must not be more
than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We
established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a
concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents
to your comments. There is no limit on
the length of the attachments.
Comments may be submitted to the
docket electronically by logging onto the
Docket Management System Web site at
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
You may also submit two copies of
your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at
the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
Please note that pursuant to the Data
Quality Act, in order for substantive
data to be relied upon and used by the
agency, it must meet the information
quality standards set forth in the OMB
and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines.
Accordingly, we encourage you to
consult the guidelines in preparing your
comments. OMB’s guidelines may be
accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
operators, including the fine assessed against the
operator and the reduction in productivity from
being pulled over to the side of the road.
Additionally, commercial vehicle operators face
additional potential costs because they can be
disqualified from operating a commercial motor
vehicle after two or more excessive speeding
citations (49 CFR 383.51), which could result in a
loss of income during the suspension period.
Accordingly, the reduced number of traffic citations
would offset some of the costs to operators from
speed limiting heavy vehicles.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s
guidelines may be accessed at http://
www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/
rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/
statistical_policy_and_research/data_
quality_guidelines/index.html.
How can I be sure that my comments
were received?
If you wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your
comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by
mail.
How do I submit confidential business
information?
If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you
should submit three copies of your
complete submission, including the
information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you
have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket
Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a
comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business
information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR part
512.)
Will NHTSA and FMCSA consider late
comments?
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
We will consider all comments that
Docket Management receives before the
close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments that Docket
Management receives after that date. If
Docket Management receives a comment
too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is
issued), we will consider that comment
as an informal suggestion for future
rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted
by other people?
You may read the comments received
by Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The
hours of the Docket are indicated above
in the same location. You may also see
the comments on the Internet. To read
the comments on the Internet, go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue
to file relevant information in the
Docket as it becomes available. Further,
some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you
periodically check the Docket for new
material.
XII. Rulemaking Analyses
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
Executive Order 12866, Executive
Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation’s regulatory policies
require the agencies to make
determinations as to whether a
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and
therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the aforementioned
Executive Orders. Executive Order
12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as one that is likely to result in
a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
We have considered the potential
impact of this proposal under Executive
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563,
and the Department of Transportation’s
regulatory policies and procedures. This
joint rulemaking is economically
significant because it is likely to have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. Thus it was reviewed
by the Office of Management and
Budget under E.O. 12866 and E.O.
13563. The rulemaking action has also
been determined to be significant under
the Department’s regulatory policies and
procedures. The Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis (PRIA) fully discusses
the estimated costs and benefits of this
joint rulemaking action. The costs and
benefits are also summarized in Section
X of this preamble.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61965
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, Public Law 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended),
whenever an agency is required to
publish an NPRM or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the
rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions). The
Small Business Administration’s
regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a
small business, in part, as a business
entity ‘‘which operates primarily within
the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is
required if the head of an agency
certifies the proposal will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the
factual basis for certifying that a
proposal will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
The agencies believe that the
proposed rules will affect small
businesses, and may have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small businesses.
Accordingly, we have included an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis in
the PRIA detailing these effects and
summarized these effects in Section
X.B. of this preamble. We summarize
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis
below.
Agencies are required to prepare and
make available for public comment an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) describing the impact of
proposed rules on small entities if the
agency determines that the rule may
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Each IRFA must contain:
(1) A description of the reasons why
action by the agency is being
considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule;
(3) A description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed
rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected
reporting, record keeping and other
compliance requirements of a proposed
rule including an estimate of the classes
of small entities which will be subject
to the requirement and the type of
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
61966
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent
practicable, of all relevant Federal rules
which may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule;
(6) Each initial regulatory flexibility
analysis shall also contain a description
of any significant alternatives to the
proposed rule which accomplish the
stated objectives of applicable statutes
and which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule
on small entities.
Description of the Reasons Why Action
by the Agency Is Being Considered
As described in greater deal above,
studies examining the relationship
between travel speed and crash severity
have confirmed the common-sense
conclusion that the severity of a crash
increases with increased travel speed.70
In 2006, NHTSA received a petition
from the American Trucking
Associations (ATA) to initiate a
rulemaking to amend the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to
require vehicle manufacturers 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). Concurrently, the ATA
petitioned the FMCSA to amend the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSR) to prohibit owners
and operators from adjusting the speed
limiting devices in affected vehicles
above 68 mph. That same year, FMCSA
received a petition from Road Safe
America to initiate a rulemaking to
amend the FMCSRs to require that all
trucks manufactured after 1990 with a
GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds be
equipped with electronic speed limiting
systems set at not more than 68 mph.
NHTSA published a notice in 2011
granting the petitions.
After conducting an analysis of crash
data and data on heavy vehicle travel
speeds, the agencies have determined
that reducing heavy vehicle travel speed
would reduce the severity of crashes
involving these vehicles and reduce the
number of resulting fatalities. After
analyzing several set speeds, including
60 mph, 65 mph, and 68 mph, NHTSA
is proposing to heavy vehicles to be
equipped with a speed limiting system.
As manufactured and sold, each of these
vehicles would be required by NHTSA
to have a speed limiting device to set a
particular speed.
70 Johnson, Steven L. & Pawar, Naveen, MackBlackwell Rural Transportation Center, College of
Engineering, University of Arkansas, Cost-Benefit
Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile Speed Limits
Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways, MBTC
2048 (Nov. 2005).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
FMCSA is proposing a
complementary Federal motor carrier
safety regulation (FMCSR) requiring
multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses and school buses with
a GVWR of more than 11,793.4
kilograms (26,000 pounds) to be
equipped with a speed limiting system
meeting the requirements of the
proposed FMVSS applicable to the
vehicle at the time of manufacture.
Motor carriers operating such vehicles
in interstate commerce would be
required to maintain the speed limiting
systems for the service life of the
vehicle.
Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposal or Final Rule
The objectives of the proposed rule
are to reduce the severity of crashes
involving heavy vehicles and reduce the
number of fatalities. Since this NPRM
would apply both to vehicle
manufacturers and motor carriers that
purchase and operate these vehicles,
this joint rulemaking is based on the
authority of both NHTSA and FMCSA.
The legal authorities for NHTSA and
FMCSA are described in Section II,
above.
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities to Which the Proposal
or Final Rule Will Apply
The proposed FMVSS would apply to
manufacturers of multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses,
with a GVWR of more than 11,793.4
kilograms (26,000 pounds). The
proposed FMCSR would apply to motor
carriers operating such vehicles in
interstate commerce.
Vehicle Manufacturers
We believe there are very few
manufacturers of heavy trucks in the
United States which can be considered
small businesses. The heavy truck
industry is highly concentrated with
large manufacturers, including Daimler
Trucks North America (Freightliner,
Western Star), Navistar International,
Mack Trucks Inc., PACCAR (Peterbilt
and Kenworth) and Volvo Trucks North
America, accounting for more than 99%
of the annual production. We believe
that the remaining trucks (less than 1
percent) are finished by final stage
manufacturers. With production volume
of less than 1 percent annually, these
remaining heavy truck manufacturers
are most likely small businesses.
NHTSA believes there are
approximately 37 bus manufacturers in
the United States. Of these, 10
manufacturers are believed to be small
businesses: Advanced Bus Industries,
Ebus Inc., Enova Systems, Gillig
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Corporation, Krystal Koach Inc., Liberty
Bus, Sunliner Coach Group LLC, TMC
Group Inc., Transportation
Collaborative, Inc., Van-Con, Inc.
Motor Carriers
The motor carriers regulated by
FMCSA operate in many different
industries. Most for-hire property
carriers fall under North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) subsector 484, Truck
Transportation, and most for-hire
passenger transportation carriers fall
under NAICS subsector 485, Transit and
Ground Passenger Transportation. The
SBA size standard for NAICS subsector
484 is currently $25.5 million in
revenue per year, and the SBA size
standard for NAICS subsector 485 is
currently $14 million in revenue per
year.
Because the agencies do not have
direct revenue figures for all carriers,
power units (PUs) serve as a proxy to
determine the carrier size that would
qualify as a small business given the
SBA’s revenue threshold. In order to
produce this estimate, it is necessary to
determine the average revenue
generated by a PU unit.
With regard to truck PUs, FMCSA
determined in the Electronic On-Board
Recorders and Hours-of-Service
Supporting Documents Rulemaking
RIA 71 that a PU produces about
$172,000 in revenue annually.
According to the SBA, motor carriers of
property with annual revenue of $25.5
million are considered small
businesses.72 This equates to 148 power
units (148.26 = 25,500,000/172,000).
Thus, FMCSA considers motor carriers
of property with 148 PUs or fewer to be
small businesses for purposes of this
analysis. FMCSA then looked at the
number and percentage of property
carriers with recent activity that would
fall under that definition (of having 148
power units or fewer). The results show
that over 99 percent of all interstate
property carriers with recent activity
have 148 PUs or fewer, which amounts
to about 493,000 carriers.73 Therefore,
the overwhelming majority of interstate
carriers of property would be
considered small entities.
With regard to passenger-carrying
vehicles, FMCSA conducted a
71 FMCSA Regulatory Analysis, ‘‘Hours of Service
of Drivers; Driver Rest and Sleep for Safe
Operations,’’ Final Rule (68 FR 22456, April 23,
2003).
72 U.S. Small Business Administration Table of
Small Business Size Standards matched to North
American Industry Classification (NAIC) System
codes, effective July 22, 2013. See NAIC subsector
484, Truck Transportation.
73 FMCSA MCMIS Data, dated 2011.
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
preliminary analysis to estimate the
average number of PUs for a small entity
earning $14 million annually,74 based
on an assumption that passenger
carriers generate annual revenues of
$150,000 per PU. This estimate
compares reasonably to the estimated
average annual revenue per power unit
for the trucking industry ($172,000). A
lower estimate was used because
passenger-carrying commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) generally do not
accumulate as many vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) per year as trucks, and
it is therefore assumed that they would
generate less revenue per PU on average.
The analysis concluded that passenger
carriers with 93 PUs or fewer
($14,000,000 divided by $150,000/PU =
93.3 PU) would be considered small
entities. FMCSA then looked at the
number and percentage of passenger
carriers registered with FMCSA that
have no more than 93 PUs. The results
show that about 98% of active passenger
carriers have 93 PUs or less, which is
about 10,000 carriers. Therefore, the
overwhelming majority of passenger
carriers to which this NPRM would
apply would be considered small
entities.
Regarding bus companies, we believe
that the companies most likely to be
affected would be those that operate
motorcoaches, which tend to be larger
buses that are used for traveling longer
distances. FMCSA data indicates that
there are approximately 4,168
authorized motorcoach carriers, 813 of
which own or lease only one
motorcoach. The median number of
motorcoaches owned or leased by these
companies is 3. Accordingly, we
estimate that most of the 4,168
motorcoach companies are small
entities with annual revenues of less
than $14 million per year.
The agencies request comments on
the percentage of small carrier business
that might be affected by the proposed
speed limiting device requirements.
Description of the Projected Reporting,
Record Keeping and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Vehicle Manufacturers
The impact on manufacturers of
heavy vehicles, whether they are large
or small businesses, would be minimal,
because these vehicles are already
equipped with electronic engine
controls that include the capability to
limit the speed of the vehicle.
74 Motor carriers of passengers with an annual
revenue of $14 million are considered small
businesses. See id., subsector 485, Transit and
Ground Passenger Transportation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Motor Carriers
FMCSA is proposing a
complementary Federal motor carrier
safety regulation (FMCSR) requiring
multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses with a GVWR of more
than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000
pounds) to be equipped with a speed
limiting system meeting the
requirements of the proposed FMVSS
applicable to the vehicle at the time of
manufacture. Motor carriers operating
such vehicles in interstate commerce
would be required to maintain the speed
limiting systems for the service life of
the vehicle.
The impact on small carriers could be
significant from a competitive
perspective. Regarding small trucking
companies, the agencies predict that a
speed limiting device might take away
certain competitive advantages that
small carriers might have over large
trucking firms that already utilize speed
limiting devices, but we have very
limited knowledge of knowing whether
that impact is 10 percent of their
business, or more or less. We estimated
that independent owner-operators of
combination trucks and single unit
trucks would drive 33,675 million miles
annually out of 112,249 million miles
traveled by these vehicles on rural and
urban interstate highways. With the
estimated average wage of $0.32/mile,
the total annual revenue would be
$10,776 million. As described in detail
earlier in the PRIA, unlike large trucking
companies, small carriers with limited
resources may not be able to increase
the number of drivers to overcome the
delay in delivery time. However, the
competitive impacts are difficult to
estimate. For example, with 65 mph
speed limiting devices, we estimated
that owner-operators would lose $50
million annually. Accordingly, owneroperators would lose not more than 1%
of their labor revenue. However, we
note that the estimates were made based
on very limited data. The agencies
request comment on how large the
economic impact might be on owneroperators.
Regarding small motorcoach
companies, we have even more limited
data to predict how affected small
motorcoach companies would
compensate for the delay in delivery
time or to quantify the effect on those
businesses. Like small trucking
companies, small motorcoach
companies might need additional
drivers to cover the same routes with a
speed limiting device if the speed
limiting device reduces the distance
they can travel within their maximum
hours of service. If those companies
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61967
were unable to hire additional drivers,
they would likely lose market share to
larger companies that could afford
additional drivers.
The agencies believe that the
proposed rule will affect small
businesses, as discussed above; and may
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small
businesses. We request comment on the
agencies’ assumptions regarding how
this rulemaking would affect small
heavy vehicle operators, and we request
comment on the type and magnitude of
that effect.
Duplication With Other Federal Rules
Although the heavy vehicle fuel
efficiency program allows speed
limiting devices as a compliance option
for vehicle manufacturers, it does not
require the devices.75 If a manufacturer
chooses to use a speed limiting device
for compliance with that program, the
speed limiting device must meet certain
requirements. These requirements are
not identical to the proposed FMVSS
requirements. Specifically, the fuel
efficiency program requirements permit
speed limiting devices to have a soft top
(i.e., a higher maximum speed than the
set speed for a limited amount of time),
which would not be permitted under
the proposed FMVSS requirements. The
fuel efficiency program also specifies
certain tamper-proofing requirements
that would not be required by the
proposed FMVSS. Finally, the proposed
FMVSS includes a requirement that
there be a means of reading the last two
speed setting modifications and the time
and date of those modifications, which
is not required for speed limiting
devices under the fuel efficiency
program.
Although the proposed speed limiting
device requirements are different than
those for speed limiting devices under
the fuel efficiency program, the
requirements are not incompatible, and
manufacturers would be able to design
speed limiting devices that satisfy the
requirements of the proposed FMVSS
and the requirements necessary for the
devices to be used for compliance with
the fuel efficiency program.
Manufacturers that choose to use speed
limiting systems as a means of
compliance with the fuel efficiency
program would need to design a system
that meets the requirements of both the
program and the proposed FMVSS, i.e.,
a speed limiting system with an initial
speed setting no greater than 65 mph
that cannot be adjusted above the speed
used for compliance under the fuel
efficiency program. Although the
75 See
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
40 CFR 1037.640.
07SEP3
61968
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
proposed FMVSS would not prohibit a
‘‘soft top’’ feature, in order to meet the
proposed requirements, the highest
achievable speed using this feature
would have to be initially set to a speed
no greater than 65 mph.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Description of Any Significant
Alternatives to the Rule Which
Accomplish the Stated Objectives of
Applicable Statutes and Which
Minimize Any Significant Economic
Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small
Entities
The agencies examined the expected
benefits and costs of alternative speed
limiting requirements, including
different maximum speed settings,
various tamper resistance requirements,
and alternative compliance test
procedures. The agencies are also
requesting comment on the potential
alternative of tying set speed to the
speed limit of the road using GPS,
vision, or vehicle-to-infrastructure based
technologies.
When speed limiters are required to
set speeds at a particular speed, the
requirement potentially imposes costs
on CMV operators, including the small
operators. A higher proposed speed
setting would reduce the costs resulting
from additional travel time. As
explained in detail in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act analysis, NHTSA
and FMCSA carefully explored the
initial speed setting. The benefits
estimate showed that limiting vehicles
to a speed of 65 mph would save
substantially more lives than the
slightly higher speed setting of 68 mph.
This speed setting would also
harmonize U.S. requirements with those
of Ontario and Quebec.
The agencies requests comment on
how the rule will impact small
businesses and alternatives that would
accomplish the objectives of the
rulemaking while minimizing the
impacts to small businesses.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA and FMCSA have examined
today’s NPRM pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local
governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking
process. The agencies have concluded
that the rulemaking would not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and
local officials or the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement.
The proposed rule would not have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’
NHTSA rules can have preemptive
effect in two ways. First, the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
contains an express preemption
provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect under this chapter, a State or a political
subdivision of a State may prescribe or
continue in effect a standard applicable to
the same aspect of performance of a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if
the standard is identical to the standard
prescribed under this chapter.
49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory
command by Congress that preempts
any non-identical State legislative and
administrative law 76 addressing the
same aspect of performance.
The proposed FMVSS would preempt
State laws or regulations addressing
heavy vehicle speed limiting devices.
However, the proposed FMVSS would
not affect the States’ ability to set
maximum speed limits for public roads
and highways, even if the posted speed
limits for heavy vehicles are different
than the set speed mandated when the
vehicles are manufactured and sold.
The express preemption provision
described above is subject to a savings
clause under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with
a motor vehicle safety standard
prescribed under this chapter does not
exempt a person from liability at
common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. § 30103(e)
Pursuant to this provision, State
common law tort causes of action
against motor vehicle manufacturers
that might otherwise be preempted by
the express preemption provision are
generally preserved. However, the
Supreme Court has recognized the
possibility, in some instances, of
implied preemption of State common
law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA’s rules—even if not expressly
preempted.
This second way that NHTSA rules
can preempt is dependent upon the
existence of an actual conflict between
an FMVSS and the higher standard that
would effectively be imposed on motor
vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort
judgment against the manufacturer—
notwithstanding the manufacturer’s
compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards
established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort
cause of action that seeks to impose a
76 The
issue of whether there is any potential for
preemption of state tort law is addressed in the
immediately following paragraph discussing the
operation of implied preemption.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
higher standard on motor vehicle
manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such
a conflict does exist —for example,
when the standard at issue is both a
minimum and a maximum standard—
the State common law tort cause of
action is impliedly preempted. See
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.,
529 U.S. 861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132,
NHTSA has considered whether this
rule could or should preempt State
common law causes of action. The
agency’s ability to announce its
conclusion regarding the preemptive
effect of one of its rules reduces the
likelihood that preemption will be an
issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, NHTSA has examined
the nature (e.g., the language and
structure of the regulatory text) and
objectives of today’s proposal and finds
that this proposal, like many NHTSA
rules, prescribes only a minimum safety
standard. Accordingly, NHTSA does not
intend that this proposal preempt state
tort law that would effectively impose a
higher standard on motor vehicle
manufacturers than that established by
today’s proposal. Establishment of a
higher standard by means of State tort
law would not conflict with the
minimum standard established in this
document. Without any conflict, there
could not be any implied preemption of
a State common law tort cause of action.
With a few exceptions not applicable
here, FMCSA regulations do not have
preemptive effect. However, States that
accept MCSAP grant funds—currently
all 50 States and the District of
Columbia—must adopt regulations
‘‘compatible’’ with many provisions of
the FMCSRs. Pursuant to MCSAP,
participating States would be required
to adopt and enforce, within 3 years of
the effective date of a final rule, State
laws or regulations applicable both to
interstate and intrastate commerce that
have the same effect as proposed 49 CFR
393.85. In other words, States would
have to prohibit even motor carriers
operating entirely in intrastate
commerce from re-setting their speed
limiting devices to speeds above the
maximum specified set speed. Because
State participation in MCSAP is
voluntary, the program does not have
federalism implications.
We solicit the comments of the States
and other interested parties on this
assessment of issues relevant to E.O.
13132.
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
When promulgating a regulation,
Executive Order 12988 specifically
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
requires that the agency must make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies
in clear language the preemptive effect;
(2) specifies in clear language the effect
on existing Federal law or regulation,
including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or
modified; (3) provides a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather
than a general standard, while
promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) specifies in clear language
the retroactive effect; (5) specifies
whether administrative proceedings are
to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly
defines key terms; and (7) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship of
regulations.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA and
FMCSA note as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposal is discussed
above in connection with Executive
Order 13132. NHTSA and FMCSA note
further that there is no requirement that
individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.
E. Executive Order 13609 (Promoting
International Regulatory Cooperation)
The policy statement in section 1 of
Executive Order 13609 provides, in part:
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign
governments may differ from those taken by
U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar
issues. In some cases, the differences
between the regulatory approaches of U.S.
agencies and those of their foreign
counterparts might not be necessary and
might impair the ability of American
businesses to export and compete
internationally. In meeting shared challenges
involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues,
international regulatory cooperation can
identify approaches that are at least as
protective as those that are or would be
adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
International regulatory cooperation can also
reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements.
The regulatory approaches to speed
limiting devices taken by certain foreign
governments are discussed in Section V
above. The proposed FMVSS adopts an
approach that is similar to the widely
used UNECE regulation. Specifically,
NHTSA is proposing a test procedure
substantially patterned after UNECE
R89, which is described above. NHTSA
requests public comment on whether (a)
the ‘‘regulatory approaches taken by
foreign governments’’ concerning the
subject matter of this rulemaking and (b)
the above policy statement have any
implications for this rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
This rulemaking would not effect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have takings implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
G. Executive Order 12372
(Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities do not
apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)
We analyzed this rulemaking under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, and determined that it
does not have a substantial effect on one
or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
We analyzed this action under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. We determined
that this NPRM would not pose an
environmental risk to health or safety
that might affect children
disproportionately.
J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy
Effects)
FMCSA analyzed this action under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that Executive
Order because while this is an
economically significant rulemaking it
is not likely to have an adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. In fact, this rulemaking would
have a positive impact on the energy
supply.
K. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Under the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113) (15 U.S.C.
3701 note), ‘‘all Federal agencies and
departments shall use technical
standards that are developed or adopted
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61969
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies, using such technical standards
as a means to carry out policy objectives
or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.’’ Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies, such as SAE International (SAE).
The NTTAA directs agencies to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when they decide not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
NHTSA and FMCSA are not aware of
any voluntary consensus standards
related to the proposed speed limiting
device requirements that are available at
this time. However, we will consider
any such standards as they become
available and seek comment on whether
any such standards exist.
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by
State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). In 2013 dollars, this threshold is
$141 million. This joint rulemaking is
not expected to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, of more
than $141 million annually, but the
proposed rules could result in the
expenditure of that magnitude by the
private sector.
As noted previously, the agencies
have prepared a detailed economic
assessment in the PRIA. That
assessment analyzes the benefits and
costs of the proposed speed limiting
device requirements for multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and
school buses with a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 11,793.4 kilograms
(26,000 pounds). The agencies’
preliminary analysis indicates that
although the proposed rule would result
in minimal costs to vehicle
manufacturers, it could result in
expenditures by CMV operators of
$1,534 million annually for 60 mph
speed limiters, $514 million annually
for 65 mph speed limiters, and $206
million annually for 68 mph speed
limiters assuming a 7 percent discount
rate. This is because limiting vehicles to
speeds will increased travel time.
The PRIA also analyzes the expected
benefits and costs of alternative speed
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61970
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
limiting requirements, including
different speed settings, various tamper
resistance requirements, and alternative
compliance test procedures. The
proposed speed setting is the
requirement that potentially imposes
costs on CMV operators. As explained
in detail in the PRIA and Section VIII of
the preamble for this proposal, NHTSA
and FMCSA carefully explored
alternative requirements for the initial
speed setting. The benefits estimate
showed that limiting vehicles to a speed
of 65 mph would save substantially
more lives than the higher petitioned
speed setting of 68 mph. Some
additional safety benefits may be
realized with a lower speed setting of 60
mph. A 65 mph set speed requirement
would harmonize U.S. requirements
with those of Ontario and Quebec.
Additionally, as described in Section
X.A.2, above, the agencies estimate that
the proposal would result in substantial
fuel savings. The fuel savings would
offset the costs to CMV operators
resulting from increased travel time.
Assuming that vehicle manufacturers
design their speed limiting devices so
that the devices also meet the necessary
requirements to be used for compliance
with the medium- and heavy-duty
vehicle fuel efficiency program (which
the agencies expect they will),77 the fuel
savings resulting from this rulemaking
would be maximized with a set speed of
65 mph because the additional fuel
savings for set speeds below 65 mph
were accounted for in the heavy vehicle
fuel efficiency program final rule.78
Specifically, under the medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency
program, heavy vehicle drive cycles are
evaluated at a maximum speed of 65
mph,79 and a speed limiting device with
a setting at or above 65 mph will show
no fuel savings.80 Thus, any fuel savings
associated with speed settings of 65
mph and above were not estimated in
the fuel efficiency program rulemaking.
However, fuel efficiency evaluation
under the program would reflect the
difference in fuel consumption between
the 65 mph baseline and a speed
limiting device with a set speed below
65 mph,81 and the heavy-duty vehicle
fuel efficiency final rule has already
accounted for the fuel savings resulting
from this difference. Accordingly, no
77 40
CFR 1037.640.
FR 57106 (Sep. 15, 2011).
79 76 FR 57182; Final Rulemaking to Establish
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles, Regulatory Impact Analysis,
Section 4.2.4, EPA–420–R–11–901 (August 2011),
available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy.
80 75 FR at 57155.
81 Id.
78 76
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
additional fuel savings from a set speed
below 65 mph could be attributed to
this rulemaking without double
counting the benefits of the heavy-duty
vehicle fuel efficiency program.
Comparing the costs and fuel savings
of the various speed setting alternatives,
which are discussed in detail in the
PRIA, the agencies estimate that limiting
heavy vehicles to 68 mph would result
in $209 million in costs (assuming a 7
percent discount rate) from increased
travel times, as compared to $523
million in costs associated with limiting
vehicles to 65 mph. However, the cost
difference would be offset by additional
fuel savings that would be realized with
a 65 mph speed setting versus a 68 mph
speed.
The agencies estimate that limiting
heavy vehicles to 60 mph would result
in $1,561 million in costs (assuming a
7 percent discount rate) from increased
travel times, i.e., an increase in costs of
$1,038 million compared to the costs of
a 65 mph speed setting. However, as
explained above, assuming that vehicle
manufacturers design their speed
limiting devices so that the devices also
meet the necessary requirements to be
used for compliance with the heavyduty vehicle fuel efficiency program, no
additional fuel savings from limiting
vehicles to 60 mph versus 65 mph could
be attributed to this rulemaking without
double counting the benefits already
accounted for in the medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency
program rulemaking.
M. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA and FMCSA have analyzed
this NPRM for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
and determined that this action may
have an impact on the quality of the
human environment. Concurrently with
this NPRM, the agencies are releasing a
Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft
EA), pursuant to NEPA and
implementing regulations and
procedures issued by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR
parts 1500–1508), NHTSA (49 CFR part
520), and FMCSA (Order 5610.1, issued
March 1, 2004 [69 FR 9680]). The
agencies prepared the Draft EA to
analyze the potential environmental
impacts of the proposal to require
installation of speed limiters in new
heavy vehicles and maintenance of a
maximum speed setting by motor
carriers operating affected vehicles. The
Draft Environmental Assessment, which
informs this NPRM, is available for
inspection or copying in the
Regulations.gov Web site listed under
ADDRESSES. The Draft EA analyzes the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
possible environmental impacts of
heavy vehicles driving at slower speeds
due to the use of vehicle speed limiters
set at three alternative maximum
speeds: 60 mph, 65 mph, and 68 mph.
The Draft EA also analyzes and
compares these action alternatives to a
‘‘No Action Alternative’’ based on
current driving behavior. The resource
areas that may be affected by the
proposed action include air quality,
public health and safety, and solid
waste and hazardous materials. In
addition, the Draft EA addresses the
agencies’ analysis required by Section
176(c) of the Clean Air Act.
NHTSA and FMCSA have reviewed
the information presented in the Draft
EA and conclude that the proposed
action would have an overall positive
impact on the quality of the human
environment. In particular, the agencies
anticipate reductions in most harmful
air pollutant emissions, benefits from
reduced fuel use (including reductions
in carbon dioxide emissions), and
reductions in releases of solid waste and
hazardous materials corresponding to
reductions in crash severity. The Draft
EA shows anticipated increases in some
harmful air pollutant emissions. The
degree of impacts for each alternative
correlate with the degree of speed
reduction anticipated under that
alternative. Overall, these impacts are
not anticipated to be great in intensity,
and they will occur so far into the future
(as a result of slow fleet turnover where
new vehicles subject to the
requirements make up only a small
percentage of on-road vehicles in the
short term) that they are subject to
considerable uncertainty. Still, for each
action alternative, the environmental
impacts of the proposed action are
expected to be beneficial when taken
together and are not expected to rise to
a level of significance that necessitates
the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement.
The Draft EA is open for public
comment. The agencies will consider all
comments received in preparing and
reviewing the Final EA. At this time,
based on the information in the Draft EA
and assuming no additional information
or changed circumstances, the agencies
expect to issue a Finding of No
Significant Impact. A FONSI, if
appropriate, would be issued concurrent
with the Final EA. However, any such
finding will not be made before careful
review of all comments.
N. Environmental Justice
We evaluated the environmental
effects of this NPRM in accordance with
E.O. 12898 and determined that there
are neither environmental justice issues
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
associated with its provisions nor any
collective environmental impact
resulting from its promulgation.
Environmental justice issues would be
raised if there were a
‘‘disproportionate’’’ and ‘‘high and
adverse impact’’ on minority or lowincome populations. None of the
alternatives analyzed in FMCSA or
NHTSA’s deliberations would result in
high and adverse environmental justice
impacts.
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the NHTSA and
FMCSA RINs contained in the heading
at the beginning of this document to
find this action in the Unified Agenda.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act
49 CFR Part 393
Highways and roads, Incorporation by
reference, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle
equipment, Motor vehicle safety.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval
from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for each collection of
information they conduct, sponsor, or
require through regulations. This
rulemaking would not establish any
new information collection
requirements.
P. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write all rules in plain
language. Application of the principles
of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to
suit the public’s needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that isn’t clear?
• Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the rule easier to
understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections
be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the
rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these
questions, please include them in your
comments on this proposal.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Q. Privacy Impact Assessment
Section 522 of Title I of Division H of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L.
108–447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C.
552a note), requires the agencies to
conduct a privacy impact assessment
(PIA) of a proposed regulation that will
affect the privacy of individuals. This
joint rulemaking would not require the
collection of any personally identifiable
information or otherwise affect the
privacy of individuals, and thus no PIA
is required.
R. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Proposed Regulatory Text
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference,
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing,
FMCSA and NHTSA propose to amend
49 CFR parts 393 and 571, respectively,
as follows:
PART 393—PARTS AND
ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR
SAFE OPERATION
1. The authority citation for part 393
of title 49 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and
31502; sec. 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102–240, 105
Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); sec. 5524 of Pub. L.
114–94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR
1.87.
2. Amend § 393.5 to include, in
alphabetical order, a definition of
‘‘speed limiting device.’’
■
§ 393.5
Definitions.
Speed limiting device means a device
or function in a vehicle capable of
limiting the maximum motive powercontrolled speed at which the vehicle
may operate.
■ 3 Add § 393.85 to read as follows:
§ 393.85
Speed Limiting Devices.
Each multipurpose passenger vehicle,
truck, bus and school bus with a gross
vehicle weight rating of more than
11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds)
manufactured on or after September 1,
2020, shall be equipped with a device
that limits its speed to [a speed to be
specified in a final rule] as required by
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 140 (49 CFR 571.140).
PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
4. The authority citation for Part 571
of Title 49 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.95.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61971
5. Add § 571.140 to subpart B to read
as follows:
■
§ 571.140
devices.
Standard No. 140; Speed limiting
S1. Scope. This standard specifies
performance requirements for vehicle
speed limiting functionality used to
limit the road speed of motor vehicles.
S2. Purpose. The purpose of this
standard is to reduce the number of
deaths and injuries that occur in crashes
when heavy vehicles are traveling at
high speeds.
S3. Application. This standard
applies to multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, buses, and school buses
with a gross vehicle weight rating of
more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000
pounds).
S4. Definitions.
Maximum Speed (Vmax) means the
maximum speed reached by the vehicle.
Set speed (Vset) means the intended
mean vehicle speed when operating in
a stabilized condition.
Speed determination parameters are
the vehicle parameters used by the
speed limiting device to calculate the
vehicle’s speed including tire size and
gear ratios.
Speed limiting device means a device
or function in a vehicle capable of
limiting the maximum motive powercontrolled speed at which the vehicle
may operate.
Stabilized speed (Vstab) means the
average vehicle speed as limited by the
vehicle speed limiting device calculated
according to S7.4.
S5. Requirements. Each vehicle
manufactured on or after September 1,
2020, shall be equipped with a speed
limiting device and meet the
requirements specified in this section.
S5.1 Equipment Requirements. The
speed limiting device shall meet the
requirements in paragraphs S5.1.1
through S5.1.2.
S5.1.1 Readable Information. The
information specified in paragraphs
S5.1.1.1 through S5.1.1.3 shall be
readable by means of a connector
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
86.010–18.
S5.1.1.1 Current Settings. The
current set speed (Vset) and current
speed determination parameters.
S5.1.1.2 Previous Vset.
(a) If the Vset has changed once, the
previous Vset value and the time and
date of the Vset change.
(b) If the Vset has changed two or more
times, the two most recent Vset values
set prior to the current Vset value and the
time and date of the two most recent Vset
changes.
S5.1.1.3 Previous Speed
Determination Parameter Values. For
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
61972
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
S5.2.3.1 The vehicle speed shall not
vary by more than ±2% of Vstab, and
S5.2.3.2 Vstab as calculated according
to S7.4 shall be no greater than Vset.
S5.3 The speed limiting device may
allow normal acceleration control for
the purpose of gear changing.
S6. Test Conditions.
S6.1 Ambient conditions.
S6.1.1 The ambient temperature is
between 7° C (45 °F) and 40° C (105 °F).
S6.1.2 The wind speed is less than
5m/s (11 mph).
S6.2 Road test surface.
S6.2.1 The test track is suitable to
enable a stabilization speed to be
maintained and the test surface is solidpaved, uniform, without irregularities,
undulations, dips or large cracks.
Gradients do not exceed 2% and do not
vary by more than 1% excluding camber
effects.
S6.2.2 The test surface is free from
standing water, snow, or ice.
S6.3 Vehicle conditions
S6.3.1 Tires. The vehicle is tested
with the tires installed on the vehicle at
the time of initial vehicle sale. The tires
are inflated to the vehicle
manufacturer’s recommended cold tire
inflation pressure(s).
S6.3.2 The vehicle is tested in an
unloaded condition with a single
operator and necessary test equipment.
S6.3.3 A truck tractor is tested
without a trailer.
S6.4 Test equipment
S6.4.1 The speed measurement is
independent of the vehicle speedometer
and is accurate within plus or minus
1%.
S7. Running the test
S7.1 The vehicle, running at a speed
which is 10 km/h below the set speed,
is accelerated at a smooth and
progressive rate using a full positive
action on the accelerator control.
S7.2 This action is maintained at
least 30 seconds after the vehicle speed
has reached 95% of Vset.
S7.3 The instantaneous vehicle
speed is recorded at a frequency of at
least 100 Hz during the testing in order
to establish the speed versus time plot
as shown in Figure 1.
S7.4 Vstab is the average vehicle
speed starting ten seconds after the
vehicle first reaches a speed equal to
95% of Vset measured over a duration of
at least 20 seconds.
Issued under the authority delegated in 49
CFR 1.87 on: Dated: August 25, 2016.
T. F. Scott Darling, III,
Administrator,
Issued under the authority delegated in 49
CFR 1.95 on: Dated: August 25, 2016.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016–20934 Filed 9–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:54 Sep 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\07SEP3.SGM
07SEP3
EP07SE16.030</GPH>
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
each speed determination parameter
that has changed, the following
information:
(a) If the speed determination
parameter has changed once, the
previous value for each changed
parameter and the time and date of the
parameter change.
(b) If the speed determination
parameter has changed two or more
times, the two most recent values for the
parameter set prior to the current
parameter value and the time and date
of the two most recent changes to the
parameter.
S5.1.2 Modification. A means shall
be provided to modify the speed
determination parameters.
S5.2 Performance Requirements.
When tested according to S6 and S7, the
vehicle shall perform as follows:
S5.2.1 The set speed (Vset) shall be
no greater than [a speed to be specified
in a final rule].
S5.2.2 After the vehicle speed has
reached 95% of Vset for the first time,
Vmax shall not exceed Vstab by more than
5%.
S5.2.3 Ten seconds after the vehicle
first reaches 95% of Vset and beyond:
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61941-61972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20934]
[[Page 61941]]
Vol. 81
Wednesday,
No. 173
September 7, 2016
Part IV
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 393
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Speed
Limiting Devices; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2016 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 61942]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0087]
RIN 2127-AK92
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 393
[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0083]
RIN-2126-AB63
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation;
Speed Limiting Devices
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA and FMCSA are proposing regulations that would require
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 11,793.4
kilograms (26,000 pounds) to be equipped with a speed limiting device
initially set to a speed no greater than a speed to be specified in a
final rule and would require motor carriers operating such vehicles in
interstate commerce to maintain functional speed limiting devices set
to a speed no greater than a speed to be specified in the final rule
for the service life of the vehicle.
Specifically, NHTSA is proposing to establish a new Federal motor
vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) requiring that each new multipurpose
passenger vehicle, truck, bus and school bus with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds) be
equipped with a speed limiting device. The proposed FMVSS 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 On-Board Diagnostic connection.
FMCSA is proposing a complementary Federal motor carrier safety
regulation (FMCSR) requiring each commercial motor vehicle (CMV) with a
GVWR of more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds) to 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. Motor carriers operating such vehicles in interstate
commerce would be required to maintain the speed limiting devices for
the service life of the vehicle.
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.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the
docket receives them not later than November 7, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by one or both of the
docket numbers in the heading of this document, by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 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.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
NHTSA: For technical issues, you may contact Mr. Markus Price,
Office of Vehicle Rulemaking, Telephone: (202) 366-1810. Facsimile:
(202) 366-7002. For legal issues, you may contact Mr. David Jasinski,
Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 366-2992. Facsimile: (202)
366-3820. You may send mail to these officials at: The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: NVS-010, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590.
FMCSA: For technical issues, you may contact Mr. Michael Huntley,
Vehicle and Roadside Operations, Telephone (202) 366-5370. Facsimile:
(202) 366-8842. For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Charles Medalen,
Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 366-1354. Facsimile: (202)
366-3602. You may send mail to these officials at: The Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, Attention: MC-PSV, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Legal Basis
III. Background
A. Speed Limiting Technology
B. NHTSA's 1991 Report to Congress on CMV Speed Control Devices
C. Petitions for Rulemaking
1. American Trucking Associations (ATA) Petition
2. Road Safe America Petition
D. Request for Comment
E. NHTSA Notice Granting Petitions
F. FMCSA Research--Speed Limiting Device Installation on CMVs
IV. Heavy Vehicle Speed Related Safety Problem
A. Heavy Vehicle Crashes at High Speeds
B. NTSB Motorcoach Speed-Related Crash Investigation
V. Applicability of NHTSA's 1991 Report to Congress on CMV Speed
Control Devices
VI. Comparative Regulatory Requirements
A. Canada
B. Australia
C. Europe
D. Japan
VII. Proposed Requirements
A. Overview
1. Proposed FMVSS
2. Proposed FMCSR
B. Applicability
1. Proposed FMVSS
2. Proposed FMCSR
C. Proposed FMVSS Requirements
1. Definitions
2. Set Speed
[[Page 61943]]
3. Tampering and Modification of the Speed-Limiting Device
4. Test Procedure and Performance Requirements
D. Proposed FMCSR Requirements
1. Enforcement
VIII. Regulatory Alternatives
A. Other Technologies Limiting Speed
B. Tampering
C. Test Procedures
D. Electromagnetic Interference
IX. Other Issues
A. Retrofitting
B. Lead Time
X. Overview of Benefits and Costs
A. Benefits
1. Safety Benefits
2. Fuel Saving Benefits
B. Costs
1. Heavy Vehicle Manufacturers
2. Societal Costs Associated with the Operation of Heavy
Vehicles
3. Impacts on Small Trucking and Motorcoach Businesses
C. Net Impact
XI. Public Participation
XII. Rulemaking Analyses
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
E. Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation)
F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
G. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments)
I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
M. National Environmental Policy Act
N. Environmental Justice
O. Paperwork Reduction Act
P. Plain Language
Q. Privacy Impact Assessment
R. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
I. Executive Summary
Studies examining the relationship between travel speed and crash
severity have confirmed the common-sense conclusion that the severity
of a crash increases with increased travel speed.\1\ Impact force
during a crash is related to vehicle speed, and even small increases in
speed have large effects on the force of impact. As speed increases, so
does the amount of kinetic energy a vehicle has. Because the kinetic
energy equation has a velocity-squared term, the kinetic energy
increase is exponential compared to the speed increase, so that even
small increases in speed have large effects on kinetic energy. For
example, a 5 mph speed increase from 30 mph to 35 mph increases the
kinetic energy by one-third.\2\ The effect is particularly relevant for
combination trucks (i.e., truck tractor and trailer) due to their large
mass.\3\ Additionally, higher speeds extend the distance necessary to
stop a vehicle and reduce the ability of the vehicle, restraint device,
and roadway hardware such as guardrails, barriers, and impact
attenuators to protect vehicle occupants in the event of a crash.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Johnson, Steven L. & Pawar, Naveen, Mack-
Blackwell Rural Transportation Center, College of Engineering,
University of Arkansas, Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-
Automobile Speed Limits Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways,
MBTC 2048 (Nov. 2005).
\2\ Virginia Commonwealth University Safety Training Center Web
site, http://www.vcu.edu/cppweb/tstc/crashinvestigation/kinetic.html.
\3\ Johnson, Steven L. & Pawar, Naveen, Mack-Blackwell Rural
Transportation Center, Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-
Automobile Speed Limits Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways,
MBTC 2048 (Nov. 2005).
\4\ Liu Cejun & Chen, Chou-Lin, NHTSA, An Analysis of Speeding-
Related Crashes: Definitions and the Effects of Road Environments,
DOT HS 811 090 (Feb. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All vehicles with electronic engine control units (ECUs) are
generally electronically speed governed to prevent engine or other
damage to the vehicle. This is because the ECU monitors an engine's RPM
(from which vehicle speed can be calculated) and also controls the
supply of fuel to the engine. The information NHTSA has analyzed
indicates that ECUs have been installed in most heavy trucks since
1999, although we are aware that some manufacturers were still
installing mechanical controls through 2003. We seek comment on when
ECUs with speed limiting capabilities became widely used for the other
heavy vehicles covered by this proposal, such as buses and school
buses.
The Department of Transportation has previously examined the issue
of mandatory speed limitation for CMVs. In 1991, NHTSA published a
report titled ``Commercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices,'' \5\
in response to the Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act of
1988.\6\ This report reviewed the problem of heavy vehicles traveling
at speeds greater than 65 mph and these vehicles' involvement in
``speeding-related'' crashes.\7\ At that time, the report found that
combination trucks tended to travel at just over the posted speed
limit. The report was supportive of fleet applications of speed
monitoring and speed limiting devices, but concluded that, because of
the small target population size as compared to the overall size of the
population, there was not sufficient justification to require the
application of speed limiting devices at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NHTSA, Commercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices, DOT
HS 807 725 (May 1991).
\6\ Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act of 1988, Pub.
L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4527 (Nov. 18, 1988).
\7\ For the purposes of the report, a vehicle was considered to
be ``speeding'' if its estimated travel speed exceeded the posted
speed limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several factors have changed since the submission of the 1991
report, including the data on the target population, changes in the
costs and technology of speed limiting devices, and the repeal of the
national maximum speed limit law. These changes undermine the
conclusions contained in the 1991 report and support our reexamination
of this safety issue.
In 2006, NHTSA received a petition from the American Trucking
Associations (ATA) to initiate a rulemaking to amend the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to require vehicle manufacturers 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).
Concurrently, the ATA petitioned the FMCSA to amend the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) to prohibit owners and operators
from adjusting the speed limiting devices in affected vehicles above 68
mph. That same year, FMCSA received a petition from Road Safe America
to initiate a rulemaking to amend the FMCSRs to require that all trucks
manufactured after 1990 with a GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds be
equipped with electronic speed limiting devices set at not more than 68
mph.
On January 26, 2007, NHTSA and FMCSA responded to these petitions
in a joint Request for Comments notice in the Federal Register, seeking
public comments on the petitions.\8\ On January 3, 2011, NHTSA
published a notice granting the petitions for rulemaking and announced
that the agency would initiate the rulemaking process with an NPRM.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 72 FR 3904 (Jan. 26, 2007).
\9\ 76 FR 78 (Jan. 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and National
Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS GES) crash
data over the 10-year period between 2004 and 2013, the agencies
examined crashes involving heavy vehicles (i.e., vehicles with a GVWR
of over 11,793.4 kg (26,000 pounds)) on roads with posted speed limits
of 55 mph or above. The agency focused on crashes in which the speed of
the heavy vehicle likely contributed to the severity of the crash
(e.g., single vehicle crashes, crashes in which the heavy vehicle was
the
[[Page 61944]]
striking vehicle). The agencies estimated that these crashes resulted
in 10,440 fatalities \10\ from 2004 to 2013. On an annual basis, the
fatalities averaged approximately 1,044 during this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The fatality numbers were also adjusted to reflect the
effect of new heavy vehicle requirements that have been adopted by
NHTSA within the last several years (e.g., the final rule adopting
seat belt requirements for passenger seats in buses (78 FR 70415
(Nov. 25, 2013), the final rule to adopt electronic stability
control requirements for heavy vehicles (80 FR 36049 (June 23,
2015)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies' analysis found that crashes involving heavy vehicles
traveling faster are more deadly than crashes involving heavy vehicles
traveling at lower speeds. Given this fact, NHTSA is proposing to
require multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses and school
buses, with a GVWR of more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds) to
be equipped with a speed limiting device. As manufactured and sold,
each of these vehicles would be required by NHTSA to have its device
set to a speed not greater than a specified speed. NHTSA is proposing a
lead time of three years from publication of a final rule for
manufacturers to meet the proposed requirements.
FMCSA is proposing a complementary Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulation (FMCSR) requiring multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks,
and buses and school buses with a GVWR of more than 11,793.4 kilograms
(26,000 pounds) operating in interstate commerce to 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 the
specified speed. Motor carriers operating such vehicles in interstate
commerce would be required to maintain the speed limiting devices for
the service life of the vehicle.
Vehicles with GVWRs above 26,000 pounds include multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses and school buses and will be
referred to as heavy vehicles within this notice. The purpose of this
joint rulemaking is to reduce the severity of crashes involving these
heavy vehicles and to reduce the number of resulting fatalities.
Since this NPRM would apply both to vehicle manufacturers and motor
carriers that purchase and operate these vehicles, this joint
rulemaking is based on the authority of both NHTSA and FMCSA.
NHTSA's legal authority for today's NPRM is the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Motor Vehicle Safety Act'').
FMCSA's portion of this NPRM is based on the authority of the Motor
Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
(1984 Act), both as amended. The two acts are delegated to FMCSA by 49
CFR 1.87(i) and (f), respectively.
These legal authorities and the legal basis for the proposed FMCSR
are discussed in more detail in Section II of this notice.
NHTSA is proposing that speed limiting device requirements apply to
all multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of
more than 11,793.4 kg (26,000 pounds). NHTSA considered several factors
in determining the GVWR threshold for the proposed FMVSS. These
vehicles carry the heaviest loads, and small increases in their speed
have larger effects on the force of impact in a crash. Additionally,
many of these vehicles are regulated by FMCSA and its State partners,
permitting the establishment of an FMCSR to ensure the enforcement of
the speed limiting requirements throughout the life of the vehicles.
Although the petitions for rulemaking requested that NHTSA permit
manufacturers to set the speed limiting device at any speed up to and
including 68 mph, the agency has not proposed a specific set speed. In
Section X of this document and in the Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Draft
Environmental Assessment accompanying this proposal, NHTSA has
considered the benefits and costs of 60 mph, 65 mph, and 68 mph maximum
set speeds.
The agencies estimate that limiting the speed of heavy vehicles to
60 mph would save 162 to 498 lives annually, limiting the speed of
heavy vehicles to 65 mph would save 63 to 214 lives annually, and
limiting the speed of heavy vehicles to 68 mph would save 27 to 96
lives annually. Although we believe that the 60 mph alternative would
result in additional safety benefits, we are not able to quantify the
60 mph alternative with the same confidence as the 65 mph and 68 mph
alternatives.
To determine compliance with the operational requirements for the
speed limiting device (i.e., that the vehicle is in fact limited to the
set speed), NHTSA is proposing a vehicle-level test that involves
accelerating the vehicle and monitoring the vehicle's speed. The
proposed test procedure is substantially based on the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) regulation on vehicle speed
limiting devices,\11\ with several modifications discussed in detail
later in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ UNECE R89, Uniform provisions concerning the approval of:
I. Vehicles with regard to limitation of their maximum speed or
their adjustable speed limitation function; II. Vehicles with regard
to the installation of a speed limiting device (SLD) or adjustable
speed limitation device (ASLD) of an approved type; III. Speed
limitation devices (SLD) and adjustable speed limitation device
(ASLD),'' E/ECE/324-E/ECE/TRANS/505//Rev. 1/Add. 88/Amend. 2
(January 30, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to reduce additional potential costs to vehicle
manufacturers, NHTSA is not proposing requirements to prevent tampering
or restrict adjusting the speed setting as part of the proposed FMVSS.
Instead, to deter tampering with a vehicle's speed limiting device or
modification of the set speed above the specified maximum set speed
after the vehicle is sold, the proposed FMVSS would be reinforced by
the proposed FMCSR, which would require motor carriers to maintain the
speed limiting devices at a set speed within the range permitted by the
FMVSS. To assist FMCSA's enforcement officials with post-installation
inspections and investigations to ensure compliance with the
requirement to maintain the speed limiters, NHTSA is proposing to
require that the vehicle set speed and the speed determination
parameters be readable through the On-Board Diagnostic (OBD)
connection.\12\ In addition to the current speed limiter settings,
NHTSA is proposing that the previous two setting modifications (i.e.,
the two most recent modifications of the set speed of the speed
limiting device and the two most recent modifications of the speed
determination parameters) be readable and include the time and date of
the modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Further information on the specification of the OBD
connection is available at http://www.epa.gov/obd/regtech/heavy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the new vehicle requirements included in this
proposal, NHTSA is considering whether to require commercial vehicles
with a GVWR of more than 26,000 pounds currently on the road to be
retrofitted with a speed limiting device with the speed set to no more
than a specified speed. The agency has not included a retrofit
requirement in this proposal because of concerns about the technical
feasibility, cost, enforcement, and small business impacts of such a
requirement. However, we are seeking public comment to improve our
understanding of the real-world impact of implementing a speed limiting
device retrofit requirement. As an alternative to a retrofit
requirement, the agencies are also requesting comment on whether to
extend the set speed requirement only
[[Page 61945]]
to all CMVs with a GVWR of more than 26,000 pounds that are already
equipped with a speed limiting device.
Based on our review of the available data, limiting the speed of
heavy vehicles would reduce the severity of crashes involving these
vehicles and reduce the resulting fatalities and injuries. Because
virtually all heavy vehicles are CMVs and would be subject to both the
proposed FMVSS and the proposed FMCSR, we expect that, as a result of
this joint rulemaking, virtually all heavy vehicles would be speed
limited.
The agencies project that this joint rulemaking would be cost-
beneficial. Specifically, by reducing the severity of crashes involving
heavy vehicles, we estimate that limiting heavy vehicles to 68 mph
would save 27 to 96 lives annually, limiting heavy vehicles to 65 mph
would save 63 to 214 lives annually, and limiting heavy vehicles to 60
mph would save 162 to 498 lives annually.\13\ Based on range of
fatalities prevented, this rulemaking would prevent 179 to 551 serious
injuries \14\ and 3,356 to 10,306 minor injuries with a maximum set
speed of 60 mph, 70 to 236 serious injuries and 1,299 to 4,535 minor
injuries with a maximum set speed of 65 mph, and 30 to 106 serious
injuries and 560 to 1,987 minor injuries with a maximum set speed of 68
mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Although we believe that the 60 mph alternative would
result in additional safety benefits, we are not able to quantify
the 60 mph alternative with the same confidence as the 65 mph and 68
mph alternatives.
\14\ The fatality-to-injury ratios for AIS 3, AIS 4, and AIS 5
injuries coincidentally add up to 1. Accordingly, the number of
serious injuries prevented (AIS 3-5) is estimated to be equivalent
to the number of fatalities. Please consult the PRIA for additional
discussion on how the agencies estimated the injuries prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we project that this joint rulemaking would result in
fuel savings and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions totaling of
$848 million annually, assuming a 7 percent discount for fuel and a 3
percent discount rate for GHG, for 60 mph and 65 mph speed limiter
settings.\15\ For 68 mph speed limiters, we would expect fuel savings
and GHG emissions reductions to result in benefits of $376 million
annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For internal consistency and because of the way the social
cost of carbon is estimated, the annual benefits are discounted back
to net present value using the same discount rate as the social cost
of carbon estimate (3 percent) rather than 3 percent and 7 percent.
Please refer to Section X for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of the proposed FMVSS to vehicle manufacturers is expected
to be minimal. As discussed above, most vehicles to which the proposed
FMVSS would apply are already equipped with electronic engine controls
which include the capability to limit the speed of the vehicle, but may
not have these controls turned on automatically.
In addition to the costs to vehicle manufacturers, we have
evaluated the societal cost implications of these proposed rules. We
estimate that the proposed rules would cost $1,561 million for 60 mph
speed limiters, $523 million for 65 mph speed limiters, and $209
million for 68 mph speed limiters $433 million annually, assuming a 7
percent discount rate, as a result of the potentially lower travel
speeds and delay in the delivery of goods. However, the estimated fuel
savings benefits of this proposed rule exceed these estimated societal
costs.
The commercial trucking market fits the classic definition of a
negative externality, in which benefits are enjoyed by one party, but
the costs associated with that benefit are imposed on another. In this
case, higher travel speeds may produce more severe traffic crashes that
result in more death, more injury, and greater property damage. While
the cost of excess fuel consumption is borne by the vehicle fleet
operators, the resulting fatalities, greenhouse gases, and pollutants
may be imposed on society. The agencies estimate that this rule would
be cost-beneficial. Even assuming that the proposed rule would result
in the high cost estimate and the low benefit estimate, the net
benefits of this rulemaking are estimated to be $1.1 billion to $5.0
billion annually for 60 mph speed limiters, $1.0 billion to $2.8
billion annually for 65 mph speed limiters, and $0.5 to $1.3 billion
annually for 68 mph speed limiters, assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
Table 1--Annual Total Benefits, 7% Discount
[In millions of 2013 dollars *]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 mph 65 mph 68 mph
Benefits -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low estimate High estimate Low estimate High estimate Low estimate High estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combination Trucks...................................... $2,571 $6,134 $1,458 $3,074 $640 $1,384
Single-unit trucks...................................... 105 230 85 128 36 53
Buses................................................... 20 159 21 79 8 32
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 2,695 6,522 1,564 3,281 684 1,469
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers were rounded to the nearest integer.
Table 2--Annual Costs, 7% Discount Associated With Increased Delivery Time
[In millions of 2013 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 mph 65 mph 68 mph
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost................................................ $1,534 $514 $206
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Overall Net Benefits to Heavy Vehicle Industries Associated With Speed Limiters, 7% Discount
[In millions, 2013 dollars] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 mph 65 mph 68 mph
Vehicle -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits.......................................... $2,695 $6,522 $1,564 $3,281 $684 $1,469
[[Page 61946]]
Total Costs............................................. 1,561 1,561 523 523 209 209
Net Benefit............................................. 1,136 4,964 1,039 2,757 475 1,260
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The estimates may not add up precisely due to rounding.
The agencies seek comments and suggestions on any alternative
options that would lower cost and maintain all or most of the benefits
of the proposal, as well as information relative to a phase-in of the
proposed requirements or alternatives to our proposed three-year lead
time for manufacturers to meet the requirements of the new FMVSS.
II. Legal Basis
Since this NPRM would apply both to vehicle manufacturers and motor
carriers that purchase and operate these vehicles, this rulemaking is
based on the authority of both NHTSA and FMCSA.
NHTSA's legal authority for today's NPRM is the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Motor Vehicle Safety Act''). Under 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), the
Secretary of Transportation is responsible for prescribing motor
vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet the need for motor
vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms.\16\ ``Motor vehicle
safety standard'' means a minimum performance standard for motor
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. When prescribing such standards,
the Secretary must consider all relevant, available motor vehicle
safety information.\17\ The Secretary must also consider whether a
proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the
types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for which it is
prescribed and the extent to which the standard will further the
statutory purpose of reducing traffic accidents and associated
deaths.\18\ The responsibility for promulgation of FMVSS is delegated
to NHTSA. In proposing to require that heavy vehicles be equipped with
speed limiting devices and that these devices initially be set to a
speed not greater than a maximum specified speed by the manufacturer,
the agency carefully considered these statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\17\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandating speed limiting devices in heavy vehicles and requiring
that those devices be set at speeds not greater than a maximum
specified speed would meet the need for motor vehicle safety by
reducing the severity of crashes involving heavy vehicles and reducing
the number of fatalities and injuries that result from such crashes.
These safety benefits are summarized above and discussed in more detail
below in Section X. The proposed FMVSS would be practicable because the
vehicles that would be subject to the requirements already have speed-
limiting capability. The proposed FMVSS also contains objective
performance criteria for evaluating the required speed limiting device,
including a vehicle test procedure based on a United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE) test procedure, specification of the type
of setting information that must be retrievable (i.e., the current
speed setting and speed determination parameters as well as the last
two modifications of each) and the means by which such information must
be retrievable (i.e., through the OBD connection). As described above,
NHTSA decided to focus on vehicles with a GVWR above 26,000 pounds and
believes that the proposed requirements are appropriate for these
vehicles because they carry the heaviest loads and because small
increases in their speed have larger effects on the force of impact in
a crash. Additionally, these vehicles are regulated by FMCSA and its
State partners, permitting the establishment of an FMCSR to ensure the
enforcement of the speed limiting requirements throughout the life of
the vehicles.
FMCSA's portion of this NPRM is based on the authority of the Motor
Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
(1984 Act), both as amended. The two acts are delegated to FMCSA by 49
CFR 1.87(i) and (f), respectively.
The 1935 Act authorizes the Department of Transportation (DOT) to
``prescribe requirements for -- (1) qualifications and maximum hours of
service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a
motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of
employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier,
when needed to promote safety of operations'' [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)].
The 1984 Act confers on DOT authority to regulate drivers, motor
carriers, and vehicle equipment. ``At a minimum, the regulations shall
ensure that--(1) commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped,
loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on
operators of commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to
operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of
commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the
vehicles safely . . . ; and (4) the operation of commercial motor
vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition
of the operators'' [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)-(4)]. Sec. 32911 of the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) [Pub. L.
112-141, 126 Stat. 405, July 6, 2012] enacted a fifth requirement,
i.e., to ensure that ``(5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is
not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation
intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a
regulation promulgated under this section, or chapter 51
[Transportation of Hazardous Material] or chapter 313 [Commercial Motor
Vehicles Operators] of this title'' [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)].
The 1935 Act authorizes regulations on the ``safety of operations
and equipment'' of a for-hire carrier and ``standards of equipment'' of
a private carrier, ``when needed to promote safety'' [49 U.S.C.
31502(b)(1)-(2)]. Speed limiting devices constitute safety equipment,
as the preamble of this proposed rule amply demonstrates, and the 1935
Act therefore authorizes FMCSA to require that such equipment be
maintained as long as the vehicle is in service.
Because NHTSA is proposing to require vehicle manufacturers to
equip every new multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus with a
gross
[[Page 61947]]
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 11,739.4 kilograms (26,000
pounds), FMCSA proposes to require motor carriers operating such
vehicles in interstate commerce to maintain functional speed limiting
devices set at not more than the maximum specified speed for the
service life of the vehicle. Two provisions of the 1984 Act are
immediately relevant. A speed limiting device installed to improve
safety must be ``maintained,'' as required by Sec. 31136(a)(1), to
ensure that its benefits are actually realized in normal operations.
Properly maintained speed limiting devices will also ensure that ``the
responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor vehicles do
not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely'' [Sec.
31136(a)(2)] in the sense that drivers cannot be ordered to drive more
than the maximum set speed.
The proposed rule does not directly address Sec. 31136(a)(3),
dealing with the physical condition of the driver, or Sec.
31136(a)(4), concerning the effect of driving on the physical condition
of operators. However, the proposed rule would significantly reduce the
consumption of diesel fuel (which is used by most vehicles heavier than
26,000 pounds), with corresponding reductions in exhaust emissions. The
effect on the health of drivers (and others) from exposure to diesel
exhaust is difficult to estimate in the absence of a dose/response
curve, significant changes in the chemical composition of diesel fuel
over the years, and the presence of confounding factors like smoking
[see, ``Hours of Service of Drivers,'' 70 FR 49978, 49983-49987, August
25, 2005]. Nonetheless, reducing the total volume of exhaust emissions
will likely have some beneficial effect on the health of many
individuals, including drivers. This issue is discussed further in the
Draft Environmental Assessment prepared for this NPRM.
Finally, consistent with Sec. 31136(a)(5), a working speed
limiting device will make it more difficult for a ``motor carrier,
shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary'' to coerce a driver
to exceed highway speed limits in violation of the regulatory
requirements of 49 CFR 392.2 and 392.6.
The 1984 Act confers jurisdiction over ``commercial motor
vehicles'' (CMVs) operating in interstate commerce. The term CMV
includes 4 alternative definitions: A minimum weight of 10,001 pounds
gross vehicle weight (GVW) or GVWR, whichever is greater [49 U.S.C.
31132(1)(A)]; two different capacity thresholds for different types of
passenger vehicle operation [Sec. 31132(1)(B)-(C)]; or the
transportation of placardable quantities of hazardous material [Sec.
31132(1)(D)]. NHTSA proposes to require manufacturers to install speed
limiting devices only on vehicles with a GVWR above 26,000 pounds.
FMCSA has no authority to regulate vehicle manufacturers [49 U.S.C.
31147(b)] but proposes to require operators of CMVs covered by the
NHTSA requirement who use the vehicles in interstate commerce to
maintain speed limiting devices at the same level of effectiveness as
the original equipment, irrespective of the CMV's passenger capacity or
use to transport placardable quantities of hazardous material.
Before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must also consider their
``costs and benefits'' [49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)]. Those
factors are discussed in this proposed rule.
III. Background
A. Speed Limiting Technology
All vehicles with electronic engine control units (ECUs) are
electronically speed limited to prevent general damage to the vehicle.
This is because the ECU monitors an engine's RPM and also controls the
supply of fuel to the engine. Available information indicates that ECUs
have been installed in most heavy trucks since 1999, though we are
aware that some manufacturers were still installing mechanical controls
through 2003.\19\ In addition, it appears that the practice of
voluntarily setting the speed limiting devices, most often at speeds
from 60 to 70 mph, has grown in recent years. Some trucking fleets use
ECUs to limit the speed of their trucks in order to reduce the number
of speed-related crashes, reduce fuel consumption, and reduce
maintenance costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Hino Motors indicated in its comments to the 2007 Request
for Comments that it manufactured mechanically controlled vehicles
through model year 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. NHTSA's 1991 Report to Congress on CMV Speed Control Devices
Section 9108 of the Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act
of 1988 required the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study on
whether devices that control the speed of CMVs enhance safe operation
of such vehicles and to submit to Congress a report on the results of
the study together with recommendations on whether to make the use of
speed control devices mandatory for CMVs.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act of 1988,
Pub. L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4527, 4530 (Nov. 18, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to this Act, NHTSA published a Report to Congress
titled ``Commercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Safety.'' \21\ This
report reviewed the problem of heavy vehicle speeding (in particular,
at speeds greater than 65 mph, which was the maximum rural Interstate
speed limit at the time) and ``speeding-related'' crash
involvements.\22\ The report described and assessed devices available
to control truck speed, and addressed the mandatory use of speed
control devices by heavy trucks. The report stated that, by all
measures of crash involvement, speeding was not a significant factor in
the crashes involving single-unit trucks. Thus, most of the report
addressed combination trucks, which presented a more complex picture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ NHTSA, Commercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Safety, DOT
HS 807 725 (May 1991). A copy of this report has been placed in the
docket.
\22\ For the purposes of the report, a vehicle was considered to
be ``speeding'' if its estimated travel speed exceeded the posted
speed limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report described the results of non-detectable radar studies
that showed that highway speed limit compliance by combination trucks
was poor but better than that of passenger vehicles. In the non-
detectable radar studies examined in the report, most trucks that were
found to be speeding were traveling at just over the posted speed
limit. Crash statistics indicated that speeding was generally less
associated with combination truck crashes than it was with passenger
vehicle crashes. The report described devices available to control
truck speed and ways that they were applied in commercial fleet
settings. The report was supportive of fleet applications of speed
monitoring devices and speed limiting devices but at that time
concluded that there was not sufficient justification to consider
requiring all heavy trucks to be so equipped due to the small number of
target crashes and uncertainties regarding the potential for crash
reduction, which suggested that the benefits of mandatory speed
limitation were questionable. Specifically, problem size statistics
\23\ suggested that the number of target crashes was low, e.g.,
approximately 30 fatal crash involvements per year for combination
trucks. The report also noted that all speeding-related crash
statistics cited in the report used the categorization ``speeding-
related'' or ``high-speed-related,'' but that these terms did not
necessarily mean that speeding was the primary cause of the crash or
any resulting fatalities. The report stated that virtually all crashes
[[Page 61948]]
involve multiple contributing factors and that the elimination of any
one factor--e.g., high speed--may or may not prevent the crash. Thus,
the report viewed the identified speeding-related and high-speed-
related crashes as only potential target crashes for speed control
devices. The report concluded that although speed control devices (if
not tampered with) were likely to reduce the highway speeds of those
trucks that do speed, their effectiveness in preventing and/or reducing
the severity of these potential target crashes was unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For the purposes of the 1991 report, the ``problem size''
included crashes where the Police Accident Report indicated speeding
at a speed greater than 70 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Petitions for Rulemaking
1. American Trucking Associations (ATA) Petition
On October 20, 2006, the ATA submitted a petition to NHTSA,
pursuant to 49 CFR 552.3, to initiate a rulemaking to amend the FMVSS
to require vehicle manufacturers to limit the speed of trucks with a
GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds to no more than 68 mph.\24\
Concurrently, the ATA petitioned FMCSA, pursuant to 49 CFR 389.31, to
initiate a rulemaking to amend the FMCSR to prohibit owners and
operators from adjusting the speed limiting devices in affected
vehicles in a way that enables the vehicles to exceed a speed of 68
mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Docket No. NHTSA-2007-26851-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ATA stated that reducing speed-related crashes involving trucks
is critical to the safety mission of both NHTSA and FMCSA, and that the
requested requirements are necessary in order to reduce the number and
severity of crashes involving large trucks. ATA's petition stated:
A lack of focus on speed as a causal or significant contributing
factor in crashes involving large trucks represents a significant
gap in the federal government's truck safety strategy. While much of
the federal truck safety budget has focused on ensuring the safe
condition of equipment, on driver fatigue, and on prevention of
impaired driving, it is clear from the research that speeding is a
more significant factor in crashes involving trucks than any of the
factors that currently receive the largest proportion of agency
attention and resources.
The ``Justification'' section of ATA's petition also stated:
ATA analyzed five years of fatal truck-involved crash data. We
found that in 20 percent of truck-involved fatal crashes where
speeding on the part of the truck driver was cited as a factor in
the crash, and the truck's speed was recorded, the speed of the
truck exceeded 68 mph. However, because the truck's speed is
reported by investigating officers in only about half of truck-
involved fatal crashes, it is impossible to determine the actual
number of potential crashes that might be avoided by limiting top
truck speed to 68 mph. However, reasonable assumptions can be made
and ATA believes the number of fatal crashes that could be avoided
is significant.
The ATA stated in its petition that reducing the speed of trucks
will likely reduce both the number and severity of crashes, although
ATA did not quantify injury or fatality reduction benefits. The ATA
also stated that the reduced number of crashes, resulting from the
lower speed for trucks, will reduce congestion, thereby reducing
societal costs associated with the loss of productivity that occurs
when vehicles have been disabled in a crash or delayed at a crash site.
According to the ATA, there will be little or no cost increase for
truck and truck tractor manufacturers associated with limiting the
maximum speed since speed limiting devices are already installed on
these vehicles during manufacture as a feature of the electronic engine
control unit. Also, the ATA contended that the cost to carriers for the
increase in time required to complete a delivery will be offset by
savings in fuel consumption, fewer crashes, and less equipment wear.
2. Road Safe America Petition
On September 8, 2006, Road Safe America, a public safety interest
group, and a group of nine motor carriers \25\ petitioned FMCSA to
amend the FMCSRs to require (1) electronic speed governors on all
trucks with a GVWR over 26,000 pounds, (2) that these electronic speed
governors be set at not more than 68 mph, and (3) that all trucks
manufactured after 1990 be equipped with such electronic speed
governors.\26\ The Road Safe America petition stated that the proposal
to limit truck speed to 68 mph would reduce the number of truck
collisions and save lives. According to Road Safe America, limiting
truck speed to 68 mph will have an immediate and uniform impact with
little or no detrimental effect on the lawful operation of CMVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The nine motor carriers who cosigned the Road Safe America
petition are 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.
\26\ Docket Nos. NHTSA-2007-265.281-0001, NHTSA-2007-265.281-
0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Request for Comment
On January 26, 2007, NHTSA and FMCSA published a joint Request for
Comments notice in the Federal Register (72 FR 3904) seeking public
comments on the ATA and Road Safe America petitions. This notice
included a summary of the ATA and Road Safe America petitions, a review
of heavy truck crash statistics, a brief summary of the 1991 NHTSA
Report to Congress on Commercial Vehicle Speed Control Devices, and a
request for specific information concerning the appropriateness of a
Federal regulation limiting the speed of large trucks to 68 mph. The
notice discussed how NHTSA is responsible for developing and issuing
FMVSSs that establish minimum safety requirements for motor vehicles
sold in the United States, and that if NHTSA ultimately established
requirements to equip trucks with speed limiting devices as requested,
FMCSA would initiate a rulemaking proceeding to amend the FMCSRs as
necessary to ensure that trucks are equipped and maintained with a
speed limiting device meeting the requirements specified in the
applicable FMVSS.
The Agencies received over 3,000 comments in response to the
Request for Comments, mostly from private citizens and small
businesses.\27\ Of these, many supported a regulation that would limit
the speed of large trucks to 68 mph, including trucking fleets and
consumer advocacy groups. Other comments submitted by independent
owner-operator truckers, one trucking fleet association, and private
citizens were opposed to the rulemaking approach requested in the
petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Docket No. NHTSA-2007-26851, available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NHTSA-2007-26851).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supported
Comments from private citizens and small organizations supporting
the petitions include responses from individuals who were involved in
crashes with heavy trucks or had friends or relatives who were killed
or severely injured in crashes with large trucks. The private citizen
supporters of the petitions include non-truck drivers who stated they
are intimidated by the hazardous driving practices of some truck
drivers, such as speeding, tailgating, and abrupt lane changes. These
comments expressed the belief that limiting the speed of heavy trucks
to 68 mph would result in safer highways, and several private citizens
recommended that trucks be limited to 65 mph rather than 68 mph.
Trucking organizations and safety groups supported the petition for
similar reasons, and the comments summarized below represent the range
of issues they addressed.
Schneider National, Inc. (Schneider), a motor carrier with a
sizeable trucking
[[Page 61949]]
fleet, indicated that its trucks have had speed limiting devices set to
65 mph since 1996. According to Schneider's crash data involving its
own fleet, vehicles without speed limiting devices 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. (J. B. Hunt), another large trucking
fleet, commented that a differential speed between cars and large
trucks will result from trucks being equipped with speed limiting
devices 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 of greater concern.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) commented that
large trucks require 20 to 40 percent more braking distance than
passenger cars and light trucks for a given travel speed. Advocates
also indicated that it did not believe that the data in the agency's
1991 Report to Congress 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 65 mph that was in effect in 1991.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ We agree with Advocates that the conclusions of our 1991
report are no longer valid, and have discussed this issue in detail
in the section titled ``Applicability of the 1991 Report to Congress
on Heavy Speed Limiters.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) stated on-board
electronic ECUs 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.
IIHS asserted that limiting trucks to 68 mph would enhance safety but
that limiting the vehicles to speeds below 68 mph would be safer.
The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) commented that
large trucks are over-represented in motor vehicle crashes, stating
that, based on 2004 data, large trucks were 3 percent of registered
vehicles and represented about 8 percent of the total miles traveled
nationwide, but were involved in 12 percent of traffic fatalities. GHSA
stated that conventional approaches to vehicle speed control do not
provide optimal benefits because of limited enforcement resources and
the large number of miles of highway to cover. Accordingly, GHSA stated
that it is prudent to consider requiring speed-limiting devices since
they are currently installed in large trucks and can be adapted to be
tamper-resistant.
Several comments, including those from ATA's Technology &
Maintenance Council, provided information concerning economic, non-
safety benefits that would result from requiring large trucks to be
speed limited. The Technology & 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.
Opposed
Comments opposing the petitions 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 asserted that mandating speed limiting devices would not
reduce the number of crashes involving heavy trucks. Specifically,
OOIDA commented that the agency's 1991 Report to Congress is still
valid today--asserting there is no need to mandate speed limiting
devices because the target population (high speed crashes) is still
small compared to the total number of truck crashes. According to
OOIDA, speed limiting devices 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 will not be forced to compete for drivers against independent
trucking operations that have not limited their speeds to 68 mph or
below. OOIDA also questioned the magnitude of the fuel economy benefits
that would be realized with speed limiting devices and stated that it
is not necessary to set large truck speed limiting devices 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. OOIDA also stated that driver compensation and
the lack of entry level driver training contribute to the problem of
driving at excessive speeds.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ FMCSA notes that Section 32305 of MAP-21 requires the
agency to complete a rulemaking requiring entry-level training for
all drivers seeking a commercial driver's license (CDL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCA and OOIDA both 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 could
result in more interaction between cars and trucks, thus posing an
additional safety risk for cars and trucks.
Other Issues
According to comments from CDW Transport, a trucking fleet, speed
limiting devices should be required on passenger vehicles as well as
CMVs.
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 some comments stating that passenger vehicles cause the majority
of the crashes between trucks and passenger vehicles. Some commenters
stated that truck drivers will experience more fatigue with a 68-mph
maximum speed, which could result in more crashes. Others expressed the
opinion that State and local law enforcement agencies should enforce
the speed of all vehicles on the nation's roads and highways, while
some commenters favored a 75-mph limit for truck speed limiting
devices, instead of 68 mph, to match the highest posted speed limit in
the country.
The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) \30\ provided
information concerning the cost of tamper-proof speed limiting devices
for large trucks. EMA estimates a one-time cost of $35 million to $50
million would be required to develop ECUs with tamper-resistant speed
limiting devices and a one-time cost of $150 million to $200 million to
develop ECUs with tamper-proof speed limiting devices. With both of
these ECU designs, there would be additional costs to make adjustments
to the ECU for maximum speed, tire size, and drive axle and
transmission gear ratio information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ In 2011, the Engine Manufacturers Association, which
includes the Truck Manufacturers Association, announced a new joint
name for the organization, the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. NHTSA Notice Granting Petitions
On January 3, 2011, NHTSA published a notice granting the two speed
limiting device-related petitions.\31\ Based on information received in
response to a request for comments, we stated that these petitions
merit further consideration through the rulemaking process. In
addition,
[[Page 61950]]
because the petitions involved overlapping issues, NHTSA stated that it
would address them together in a single rulemaking. Finally, the agency
noted that the determination of whether to issue a rule would be made
in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with
statutory criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 76 FR 78 (Jan. 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. FMCSA Research--Speed Limiting Device Installation on CMVs
In March 2012, FMCSA published a research report on a study
intended to identify the safety impacts of implementing speed limiting
devices in commercial vehicle fleet operation.\32\ The FMCSA study
focused on the reduction in truck crashes that could have been avoided
and/or mitigated with an active speed limiting device installed. This
was the first study to use actual crash data collected directly from
truck fleets, representing a wide array of crashes. More specifically,
the study included data from 20 truck fleets, including approximately
138,000 trucks, and it analyzed more than 15,000 crashes. The findings
showed strong positive benefits for speed-limited trucks. In terms of
safety benefits, results indicated that trucks equipped with speed
limiting devices had a statistically significant lower speed-limited-
relevant crash rate compared to trucks without speed limiting devices
(1.6 crashes per 100 trucks/year versus 2.9 crashes per 100 trucks/
year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Hanowski, R. et al., Research on the Safety Impacts of
Speed Limiter Device Installations on Commercial Motor Vehicles:
Phase II, FMCSA-RRR-12-006, March 2012, available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/51000/51300/51361/Speed-Limiters.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA's Compliance, Safety, and Accountability Program \33\ (CSA)
addresses the issue of speeding-related crashes through its Unsafe
Driving BASIC. This BASIC is a strong predictor of crash rates,
although not the severity of crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FMCSA report focused on the effectiveness of a set speed
limiter in avoiding crashes. Because this research relied on fleets to
report crashes, a level of uncertainty was introduced based on varying
reporting techniques. Additional uncertainty was introduced because of
difficulties in establishing comparable routes in order to balance risk
exposure. While the FMCSA study was large, the agencies are using a
distinctively different approach for the estimation of benefits that
includes 10 years of crash data analysis. As described later in this
notice, NHTSA has examined actual crashes and the severity of those
crashes at various speeds to estimate the safety benefits of reducing
crash speeds. While NHTSA's approach to estimating the safety benefits
is more conservative, the agency has greater confidence that the
benefits demonstrated in our approach will be fully realized because of
our approach's ability to more effectively isolate the effects of speed
reduction on safety.
IV. Heavy Vehicle Speed Related Safety Problem
A. Heavy Vehicle Crashes at High Speeds
Studies examining the relationship between travel speed and crash
severity have concluded that the severity of a crash increases with
increased travel speed.\34\ Impact force during a crash is related to
vehicle speed, and even small increases in speed have large effects on
the force of impact. As speed increases, so does the amount of kinetic
energy a vehicle has. Because the kinetic energy equation has a
velocity-squared term, the kinetic energy increase is exponential
compared to the speed increase, so that even small increases in speed
have large effects on kinetic energy. For example, a 5 mph speed
increase from 30 mph to 35 mph increases the kinetic energy by one-
third.\35\ The effect is particularly relevant for combination trucks
(i.e., truck tractor and trailer) due to their large mass.\36\
Additionally, higher speeds extend the distance necessary to stop a
vehicle and reduce the ability of the vehicle, restraint device, and
roadway hardware such as guardrails, barriers, and impact attenuators
to protect vehicle occupants in the event of a crash.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Johnson, Steven L. & Pawar, Naveen, Mack-Blackwell Rural
Transportation Center, Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-
Automobile Speed Limits Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways,
MBTC 2048 (Nov. 2005).
\35\ Virginia Commonwealth University Safety Training Center Web
site, http://www.vcu.edu/cppweb/tstc/crashinvestigation/kinetic.html.
\36\ Johnson, Steven L. & Pawar, Naveen, Mack-Blackwell Rural
Transportation Center, Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-
Automobile Speed Limits Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways,
MBTC 2048 (Nov. 2005).
\37\ Liu Cejun & Chen, Chou-Lin, NHTSA, An Analysis of Speeding-
Related Crashes: Definitions and the Effects of Road Environments,
DOT HS 811 090 (Feb. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating the role travel speed plays in heavy vehicle crashes,
the agencies used FARS and GES crash data over the 10-year period
between 2004 and 2013 to examine crashes involving heavy vehicles
(i.e., vehicles with a GVWR of over 11,793.4 kg (26,000 pounds)) on
roads with posted speed limits of 55 mph or above. The agency focused
on crashes in which the speed of the heavy vehicle likely contributed
to the severity of the crash (e.g., single vehicle crashes, crashes in
which the heavy vehicle was the striking vehicle). The agencies
estimated that these crashes resulted in 10,440 fatalities \38\ from
2004 to 2013 (approximately 1,044 annually).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The fatality numbers were also adjusted to reflect the
effect of new heavy requirements that have been adopted by NHTSA
within the last several years (e.g., the final rule adopting seat
belt requirements for passenger seats in buses (78 FR 70415 (Nov.
25, 2013), the final rule to adopt electronic stability control
requirements for heavy vehicles (80 FR 36049 (June 23, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the 10,440 fatalities, 9,747 resulted from crashes involving
combination trucks, 442 resulted from crashes involving single unit
trucks and the remaining 251 resulted from crashes involving buses.
Table 4--Adjusted Fatal Target Population Based on FARS, Crash and Occupant Counts
[For vehicles with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lbs.), 10 years, 2004-2013]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combination truck Single unit truck Bus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash counts Person counts Crash counts Person counts Crash counts Person counts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9,285 9,747 417 442 194 251
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61951]]
B. NTSB Motorcoach Speed-Related Crash Investigation
In addition to examining the FARS and NASS GES data relating to
fatal heavy vehicle crashes, the agencies reviewed the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Accident Reports to better
understand the details surrounding high-speed crashes involving
motorcoaches. The agencies identified one motorcoach crash in which
excessive vehicle speed was cited as a major safety risk. The crash
occurred on U.S. Route 163, in Mexican Hat, Utah, on January 6,
2008.\39\ Nine passengers were fatally injured and 43 passengers and
the driver sustained injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ NTSB/HAR-09/01 PB2009-91620; Motorcoach Run-Off-the-Road
and Rollover U.S. Route 163, Mexican Hat, Utah; January 6, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the crash investigation, NTSB conducted a vehicle speed
analysis and estimated that the motorcoach was likely traveling 88 mph
at the time of the crash. Although the motorcoach had a speed-limiting
device with a maximum speed of 72 mph, NTSB determined that the
motorcoach was capable of achieving a higher speed while in 10th gear
when going downhill.
Based on the facts surrounding this crash, this incident does not
necessarily demonstrate the safety risk that speed-limiting devices are
meant to address. Existing speed-limiting devices regulate a vehicle's
speed by monitoring the engine's RPM and controlling the supply of fuel
to the engine, but do not limit the downhill speed of a vehicle.
Although today's proposal would not necessarily limit speed on downhill
portions of roadways, we are requesting comments on whether a device
that could limit speeds in such a situation is technically feasible.
V. Applicability of NHTSA's 1991 Report to Congress on CMV Speed
Control Devices
As discussed above, in 1991, NHTSA published a report titled
``Commercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices.'' \40\ This report
reviewed the problem of commercial vehicle operations at speeds greater
than 65 mph and these vehicles' involvement in speed-related crashes.
The report found that combination trucks tended to travel at just over
the posted speed limit. The report was supportive of fleet applications
of speed monitoring and speed-limiting devices but concluded that,
because of the small target population size, there was not sufficient
justification to require the application of speed-limiting devices at
that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ DOT HS 807 725 (May 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the two petitions received by NHTSA, we reexamined
the report and determined that several factors have changed since its
submission in 1991, including data on the target population, changes in
the costs and technology of speed limiting devices, and the repeal of
the national maximum speed limit law. These changes undermine the
conclusions contained in the 1991 report.
The 1991 report focused on the crash involvement rate of heavy
vehicles. The report estimated 39 fatalities annually involving
combination trucks traveling in excess of 70 mph. However, the report
stated that NHTSA was unable to determine whether the reduction in
heavy vehicle travel speeds would actually reduce the crash risk (or
resulting fatality risk) of these vehicles significantly, since other,
non-speed-related factors might still have occurred to cause the
crashes. The report determined that the incremental benefits of
mandatory speed limiting devices were questionable.
As described in more detail below and in the Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis (PRIA) that accompanies this NPRM, included in the
docket, the agencies have analyzed more recent data from 2004 to 2013
in order to determine the potential benefits of limiting the maximum
speed of vehicles with a GVWR of over 11,793.4 kg (26,000 pounds).
Instead of focusing on the effect of such devices on crash involvement
rate, we have focused on their effect on crash severity and used this
approach to isolate the effect of speed on the fatal crash rate.
Accordingly, this methodology allows us to estimate with greater
certainty the lives that can be saved by electronically setting the
maximum speed of vehicles with a GVWR of over 11,793.4 kg (26,000
pounds). Additionally, the 1991 report detailed the mechanisms for
limiting speed available at that time and their associated costs. While
the report accurately predicted the proliferation of electronically-
controlled engines capable of limiting speed, it also noted the high
cost of installing mechanical engine speed governors on vehicles. The
available information indicates that electronically-controlled engines
have been installed in most heavy trucks since 1999, though we are
aware that some manufacturers were still installing mechanical controls
through 2003. Accordingly, many of the equipment cost concerns
discussed in the 1991 report are inapplicable today.
Finally, during the time the 1991 report was being developed, the
maximum speed limit in the U.S. was 55 mph.\41\ The national speed
limit was repealed in 1995.\42\ Examining current State speed limits,
the maximum posted speed limits for trucks vary between 55 and 85, with
35 States having a maximum posted truck speed limit above 65 mph.\43\
\41\ Although the maximum national speed limit was 55 mph, some
rural interstates were exceptions to this, with maximum speed limits
of 65mph.
\42\ The Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act in 1974
mandated a 55 mph national maximum speed limit on all U.S. highways
and tied highway funds to the enforcement of the limit by States.
The Surface Transportation Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (1987)
gave each state the right to increase speed limits on portions of
the Interstate system lying within the least-populated areas of its
boundaries. The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 gave
States the ability to set speed limits.
\43\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Maximum Posted
Speed Limits, http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/speedlimits?topicName=speed, (last visited June 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55 mph: California, District of Columbia
60 mph: Hawaii, Michigan, Washington
65 mph: Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Massachusetts,
Montana, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont
70 mph: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin
75 mph: Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma
80 mph: Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
85 mph: Texas
Thus, vehicles, including those with a GVWR of 11,793.4 kg (26,000
pounds), are now traveling faster than they were in 1991.
Based on the foregoing, the agencies have determined that it was
appropriate to reexamine the report to Congress and have come to the
conclusion that the concerns and conclusions in that report are no
longer valid. However, we have no plans at this time to prepare an
updated study, given limited agency resources.
VI. Comparative Regulatory Requirements
In developing this proposal, the agencies examined speed-limiting
requirements in other countries, which are summarized below. Several
jurisdictions have imposed speed-limiting requirements on certain heavy
[[Page 61952]]
vehicles and have developed test procedures to ensure that covered
vehicles meet these requirements. The Canadian provinces of Quebec and
Ontario limited the speed of large trucks to 65 mph in July 2009. In
Australia, large trucks have been limited to 62 mph since 1990, with a
56 mph limit for road trains (multiple trailers). The European Union
has limited the speed of large trucks and buses under its jurisdiction
to 62 mph since 1994. Japan limited large trucks to 56 mph in 2003.
A. Canada
Transport Canada does not have a Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard for heavy vehicle speed limiting; however, the provinces of
Ontario and Quebec do require that if a CMV is equipped with an
electronic control module capable of being programmed to limit vehicle
speed, it must be set to no more than 105 km/h (65 mph).\44\ This
requirement does not apply to buses, mobile cranes, motor homes,
vehicles manufactured before 1995, vehicles with a manufacturer's gross
vehicle weight rating under 11,793.4 kg (26,000 pounds), ambulances,
cardiac arrest emergency vehicles, or fire apparatuses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O, ch. H.8, Section 68.1,
available at http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#s68p1s1, and Equipment, RRO/1990-587,
available at http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900587_e.htm. In Quebec and Ontario, enforcement is
carried out primarily using standard speed control methods to
identify heavy vehicles being driven at more than 105 km/h.
Complementing these methods, they use portable electronic testing
units connected to a port located inside the truck's cab, highway
controllers to access motor data and determine whether the speed
limiter has been set at a speed of 105 km/h or less. http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/trucks/trucklimits.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional requirements for Ontario include the following:
A speed-limiting device is properly set if it prevents a
driver, by means of accelerator application, from accelerating to or
maintaining a speed greater than permitted.
The maximum speed shall be set by means of the electronic
control module that limits the feed of fuel to the engine.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See O. Reg. 396/08, s.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A CMV is exempt if it is equipped with an equally
effective device, not dependent on the electronic control module, which
allows limitation of vehicle speed, remotely or not, but does not allow
the driver to deactivate or modify the set speed.
All aspects of a CMV's computer device or devices,
computer programs, components, equipment and connections that are
capable of playing a role in preventing a driver from increasing the
speed of a CMV beyond a specified value shall be in good working order.
A CMV's electronic control module shall contain
information that accurately corresponds with any component or feature
of the vehicle referred to in the module, including information
regarding the tire rolling radius, axle gear ratio and transmission
gear ratio.
B. Australia
In Australia, heavy goods vehicles and heavy omnibus maximum road
speed are regulated through the Australian Design Rule (ADR) 65/00
``Maximum Road Speed Limiting for Heavy Goods Vehicles.'' This standard
applies to heavy omnibuses with a gross vehicle mass (GVM) of 5 tons or
more (UNECE category code M3), as well as heavy goods vehicles over 12
tons (UNECE category code N3). For ``Road Train'' vehicles, the maximum
road speed capability is established by the State or Territory
authority. For other heavy goods vehicles and for heavy omnibus
vehicles, the maximum road speed capability may be no greater than 100
km/h (62 mph).
The ADR allows for vehicles to be speed-limited by means of gearing
or a governor and tested with the following conditions:
The tires shall be bedded and the pressure shall be as
specified by the manufacturer.
The vehicle shall be at `Unladen Mass.'
The track surface shall be free from standing water, snow
or ice and shall be free from uneven patches; and the gradient shall
not exceed 2 percent and gradients shall not vary by more than 1
percent excluding camber effects.
The mean wind road speed measured at a height at least 1
meter above the ground shall be less than 6 m/s with gusts not
exceeding 10 m/s.
The instantaneous vehicle road speed shall be recorded
throughout the test with a road speed measurement accuracy of at least
plus or minus 1 percent at maximum time intervals of 0.1 seconds. The
test is then conducted ``starting from a road speed 10 km/h less than
the `Set Speed' and the vehicle shall be accelerated as much as
possible without changing gear by using a fully positive action on the
accelerator control. This action shall be maintained without changing
gear for at least 30 seconds after the `Set Speed' is achieved.'' The
acceptance criteria for this test are twofold.
[cir] Within the first 10 seconds after reaching the `Set Speed'
the maximum vehicle road speed shall not exceed 105% of `Set Speed' and
the rate of change of vehicle road speed shall not exceed 0.5 m/s\2\.
[cir] More than 10 seconds after reaching the `Set Speed', the
maximum vehicle road speed shall not differ from the `Set Speed' by
more than plus or minus 3.3% of the `Set Speed' and the rate of change
of road speed shall not exceed 0.2 m/s\2\.
C. Europe
In 1992, the European Commission (EC) issued directive 92/6/EEC,
requiring installation of speed limiting devices on trucks weighing
over 12,000 kg (26,400 pounds) and buses with eight or more passenger
seats weighing over 10,000 kg (22,000 pounds). The directive required
that the speed limiting devices be set in such a way that covered
trucks could not exceed 90 km/h (55.9 mph) and that covered buses could
not exceed 100 km/h (62.1 mph). These requirements were phased in,
initially applying to new vehicles registered after January 1, 1994. A
retrofit requirement was subsequently added so that the speed-limiting
requirements apply to all covered vehicles registered after January 1,
1988.
That same year, UNECE enacted Regulation 89 (ECE R89), which
details uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with
regard to their maximum speed and installation of speed limiting
devices, as well as approval of speed limiting devices themselves.\46\
This regulation specifies general requirements for vehicles with speed
limiting devices, as well as performance requirements and test
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ UNECE R89, Uniform provisions concerning the approval of:
I. Vehicles with regard to limitation of their maximum speed or
their adjustable speed limitation function; II. Vehicles with regard
to the installation of a speed limiting device (SLD) or adjustable
speed limitation device (ASLD) of an approved type; III. Speed
limitation devices (SLD) and adjustable speed limitation device
(ASLD),'' E/ECE/324-E/ECE/TRANS/505//Rev. 1/Add. 88/Amend. 2
(January 30, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ECE R89 test involves running the vehicle on a test track at a
speed 10 km/h (6.2 mph) below the set speed and then accelerating the
vehicle as much as possible until at least 30 seconds after the vehicle
speed has stabilized. The speed of the vehicle is recorded at intervals
of less than 0.1 second. The test is considered satisfactory if the
stabilized speed of the vehicle does not exceed the set speed of the
vehicle by more than five percent of the set speed or 5 km/h (3.1 mph)
(whichever is greater), the maximum speed does not
[[Page 61953]]
exceed the stabilized speed by more than five percent, and the variance
in vehicle speed and rate of change of vehicle speed does not exceed
certain thresholds during specified portions of the test.
In 2002, the EC issued directive 2002/85/EC, which extended the
coverage of the speed limiting device requirements to include trucks
weighing between 3,500 kg (7,716 pounds) and 12,000 kg (26,400 pounds)
and buses with eight or more passenger seats weighing less than 10,000
kg (22,000 pounds).
The ECE R89 requirements are as follows:
The speed limitation must be such that the vehicle in
normal use, despite the vibrations to which it may be subjected,
complies with certain provisions including the following:
[cir] The vehicle's speed limiting device (SLD) must be so
designed, constructed and assembled as to resist corrosion and ageing
phenomena to which it may be exposed and to resist tampering in
accordance with the paragraph below.
[ssquf] The limitation threshold must not, in any case, be capable
of being increased or removed temporarily or permanently on vehicles in
use.
[ssquf] The speed limitation function and the connections necessary
for its operation, except those essential for the running of the
vehicle, shall be capable of being protected from any unauthorized
adjustments or the interruption of its energy supply by the attachment
of sealing devices and/or the need to use special tools.
[cir] The speed limiting function shall not actuate the vehicle's
service braking device. A permanent brake (e.g., retarder) may be
incorporated only if it operates after the speed limitation function
has restricted the fuel feed to the minimum fuel position.
[cir] The speed limitation function must be such that it does not
affect the vehicle's road speed if a positive action on the accelerator
is applied when the vehicle is running at its set speed.
[cir] The speed limitation function may allow normal acceleration
control for the purpose of gear changing.
[cir] No malfunction or unauthorized interference shall result in
an increase in engine power above that demanded by the position of the
driver's accelerator.
[cir] The speed limitation function shall be obtained regardless of
the accelerator control used if there is more than one such control
which may be reached from the driver's seating position.
[cir] The speed limitation function shall operate satisfactorily in
its electromagnetic environment ``without unacceptable electromagnetic
disturbance for anything in this environment.''
[cir] The applicant for approval shall provide documentation
describing checking and calibration procedures. ``It shall be possible
to check the functioning of the speed limitation function whilst the
vehicle is stationary.''
Annex 5 of the ECE R89 regulation provides specific vehicle, test
track, test equipment, and test methods upon which we have based our
proposed test procedure. The ECE regulation also contains specific
acceleration, deceleration, and speed.
The test begins with the vehicle running at a speed 10 km/h below
the set speed and then accelerated as much as possible using a fully
positive action on the accelerator control. This action is then
maintained for at least 30 seconds after the vehicle speed has been
stabilized. During the test, the vehicle's precise speed and time are
collected in order to calculate the maximum speed, stabilized speed,
the amount of time required to stabilize the speed, maximum
acceleration before the stabilized speed is established, and the
maximum acceleration during the stabilized period.
D. Japan
In Japan, speed limitation devices are required to be installed on
motor vehicles used to carry goods and have a GVWR of 8 tons or more or
a maximum loading capacity of 5 tons or more. These devices are also
required on trucks drawing trailers which have a GVWR of 8 tons or more
or a maximum loading capacity of 5 tons or more. The general rules for
these devices are as follows:
The speed limitation device shall be so constructed that
the vehicle may not be accelerated by the operation of the acceleration
devices, such as the accelerator pedal, when the vehicle is running at
its set speed.
The set speed of the speed limitation device shall be any
speed not exceeding 90 km/h. Furthermore, the speed limitation device
shall be so constructed that the users, etc. of the vehicle cannot
alter the set speed nor release the setting.
The speed limitation device shall be fully capable of
``withstanding the running.'' Even if wrong operation, etc., of the
speed limitation device should occur, it would not incur any increased
output that will exceed the engine output determined by the condition
of the accelerating devices, such as the depressing amount of the
accelerator pedal.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ NHTSA understands this provision to require robustness of
the speed limitation device and limitations on the impacts of its
failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On motor vehicles equipped with ``plural'' accelerating
devices, the speed limitation device shall actuate for every
accelerating device.
The speed limitation device shall not actuate the service
brake device of the vehicle. However, the speed limitation device may
actuate the auxiliary brake device only after the fuel supply has been
minimized.
The speed limitation device and connections necessary for
its operation (except connections whose disconnection will prevent the
normal motor vehicle operation) shall be capable of being protected
from any unauthorized adjustments that will hamper the function of the
speed limitation device or the interruption of its energy supply, such
as power supply, by the attachment of sealing devices and/or the need
to use special tools. However, this provision shall not apply to speed
limitation devices whose function can be confirmed while the vehicle is
stopping.
The conformity of these requirements is tested either by the use of
a proving grounds test, a chassis dynamometer test, or by an engine
bench test in the following ways:
Proving grounds test
[cir] Conditions of the test vehicle
[ssquf] The air inflation pressure of the tires shall be the value
as posted in the specification table. Moreover, the tires shall be ones
that have undergone break-in.
[ssquf] The weight of the test vehicle shall be the vehicle weight.
However, on motor vehicles equipped with a spare tire and onboard
tools, the test may be conducted with such articles mounted on the
vehicle.
[cir] Characteristics of proving ground
[ssquf] The surface of the proving ground shall be flat paved road.
Gradients shall not exceed 2% and shall not vary by more than 1%
excluding camber effects.
[ssquf] The surface of the proving ground shall be free from water
pool, snow accumulation or ice formation.
[cir] Ambient weather conditions
[ssquf] The mean wind speed shall be less than 6 m/s. Moreover, the
maximum wind speed shall not exceed 10 m/s.
Acceleration test
[cir] Test Procedure
[ssquf] The vehicle running at a speed 10 km/h below the set speed
shall be accelerated as much as possible by operating the accelerator
device, e.g. by
[[Page 61954]]
depressing the accelerator pedal fully. This action shall be maintained
at least 30 seconds even after the vehicle speed has been stabilized.
The vehicle speeds shall be recorded during the test in order to
establish the curve of the speed versus the time. In this case, the
accuracy of the speed measurement shall be within 1%, whereas the
accuracy of the time measurement shall be within 0.1 second.
[cir] The test shall be carried out for each gear ratio allowing in
theory the set speed to be exceeded.
Requirements
[cir] In this test, the speed of the test vehicle shall satisfy the
following requirements enumerated below.
[ssquf] The stabilized speed shall not exceed the set speed plus 5
km/h nor a speed of 90 km/h.
[ssquf] After the stabilization speed has been reached for the
first time, the maximum speed shall not exceed the stabilization speed
multiplied by 1.05. Furthermore, the absolute value of the rate of
change of speed shall not exceed 0.5 m/s \2\ when measured on a period
greater than 0.1 second.
[ssquf] Within 10 seconds of first reaching the stabilized speed,
the speed limitation function shall be controlled in such a way that
the following requirements are satisfied.
[ssquf] The speed shall not vary by more than 4% of the stabilized
speed or 2 km/h, whichever is greater.
[ssquf] The absolute value of the rate of change of speed shall not
exceed 0.2 m/s\2\ when measured over a period greater than 0.1 second.
[cir] Steady speed test
[ssquf] Test procedure
The vehicle shall be driven at full acceleration up to the
steady speed by operating the acceleration device, e.g. by depressing
the accelerator pedal fully. Then, the vehicle shall be maintained at
this stabilized speed at least 400 meters. The vehicle's average speed
shall be measured after the vehicle attained the stabilized speed.
Next, the same measurement shall be repeated on the proving ground but
in the opposite direction. The mean of the two average speeds measured
for both test runs shall be considered the mean stabilized speed. The
whole test shall be conducted five times. In this case, the speed
measurements shall be performed with an accuracy of 1% whereas the time
measurements shall be carried out with an accuracy of 0.1 second.
The test shall be carried out for each gear ratio allowing
in theory the set speed to be exceeded.
Requirements
[cir] In this test, the speeds of the test vehicle shall satisfy
the following.
[cir] On each test run, the mean stabilized speed shall not exceed
the set speed plus 5 km/h or a speed of 90 km/h.
[cir] The difference between the maximum value and the minimum
value of the mean stabilized speeds obtained during each test run shall
be no more than 3 km/h.
Chassis dynamometer test
[cir] Conditions of chassis dynamometer
[ssquf] The equivalent inertia weight shall be set with an accuracy
of 10% of the vehicle weight of the test vehicle.
Acceleration test
[cir] Test procedure
[ssquf] The vehicle running at a speed 10 km/h below the set speed
shall be accelerated as much as possible by operating the accelerating
device, e.g. by depressing the accelerator pedal fully. This action
shall be maintained at least 20 seconds even after the vehicle speed
has been stabilized. The vehicle speeds shall be recorded during the
test in order to establish the curve of the speed versus the time. In
this case, the accuracy of the speed measurement shall be within 1%, whereas the accuracy of the time measurement shall be within
0.1 second.
[ssquf] The load of the chassis dynamometer during the test shall
be set to the forward running resistance of the test vehicle with an
accuracy of 10%. Furthermore, when the competent authority approves it
as appropriate, the load may be set to the maximum power of the engine
multiplied by 0.4.
[ssquf] The test shall be carried out for each gear ratio allowing
in theory the set speed to be exceeded.
Test procedure
[cir] The vehicle shall be driven at full acceleration up to the
steady speed by operating the accelerating device, e.g., by depressing
the accelerator pedal fully. Then, the vehicle shall be maintained at
this stabilized speed at least 400 meters. The vehicle's average speed
shall be measured after the test vehicle has attained the stabilized
speed. This average speed shall be considered the mean stabilized
speed. The whole test shall be conducted five times. The speed
measurements shall be performed with an accuracy of 1
percent, whereas the time measurements shall be carried out with an
accuracy of within 0.1 second.
[cir] The load of the chassis dynamometer shall be changed
consecutively from the maximum power of the engine to the maximum power
of the engine multiplied by 0.2.
[cir] The test shall be carried out for each gear ratio allowing in
theory the set speed to be exceeded.
In this test, the requirements prescribed shall be
satisfied.
[cir] Engine bench test
[ssquf] This test method can be carried out only when the competent
authority recognizes that this bench test is equivalent to the proving
ground measurement.
Indication
[cir] With regard to those motor vehicles equipped with a speed
limitation device that has complied with the requirement of this
Technical Standard, a mark shall be indicated at a place in the vehicle
compartment where the driver can easily see the mark and at the rear
end of the vehicle (excluding truck tractors).
VII. Proposed Requirements
A. Overview
1. Proposed FMVSS
NHTSA is proposing to establish a new FMVSS that would require new
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and school buses with a
gross vehicle weight rating of more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000
pounds) to be equipped with a speed-limiting device. Additionally, as
manufactured and sold, each vehicle would be required to have its
device set to a specified speed. Although NHTSA has not specified a
maximum set speed in this proposal, NHTSA intends to specify a maximum
set speed in a final rule implementing this proposal. NHTSA has
considered the benefits and costs of a 68 mph maximum set speed as
requested in the petitions as well as 60 mph and 65 mph maximum set
speeds in the overview of benefits and costs discussed in Section X of
this document and in the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis,
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Draft Environmental
Assessment accompanying this proposal.
To determine compliance with the operational requirements for the
speed-limiting device (e.g., that the vehicle is in fact limited to the
set speed), NHTSA is proposing a vehicle level test that involves
accelerating the vehicle and monitoring the vehicle's speed. The
proposed test procedure is substantially based on the UNECE R89,
described above.
Finally, to assist FMCSA's enforcement officials with post-
installation inspections and investigations to ensure compliance with
the speed limiting device maintenance requirement, NHTSA is proposing
to require that the vehicle set
[[Page 61955]]
speed and the speed determination parameters be readable through the
On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) connection.\48\ In addition to the current
speed limiting device settings, NHTSA is proposing that the previous
two setting modifications (i.e., the two most recent modifications of
the set speed of the speed limiting device and the two most recent
modifications of the speed determination parameters) be readable and
include the time and date of the modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Further information on the specification of the OBD
connection is available at http://www.epa.gov/obd/regtech/heavy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed FMVSS,
including the requirements for a speed-limiting device, the initial set
speed requirement, the types of vehicles to which the speed limiting
device requirements should be applicable, the proposed recording
requirement and potential alternatives, and the proposed test
procedure.
2. Proposed FMCSR
FMCSA is proposing an FMCSR requiring each CMV with a GVWR of more
than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds) to 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 specified speed. As with the
FMVSS, FMCSA has not specified the maximum set speed in this proposal,
FMCSA intends to specify the maximum set speed in a final rule
implementing this proposal. Motor carriers operating such vehicles in
interstate commerce would be required to maintain the speed-limiting
devices for the service life of the vehicle. FMCSA solicits comment on
all aspects of this proposed FMCSR.
B. Applicability
1. Proposed FMVSS
NHTSA is proposing that speed limiting device requirements apply to
all new multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating of more than 11,793.4 kg (26,000 pounds).
Although the majority of the estimated safety benefits of this joint
rulemaking are for combination trucks because they travel more vehicle
miles at high speeds, and thus are involved in more high-speed crashes,
this rulemaking would also reduce the number of fatalities from crashes
involving other types of heavy vehicles, some of which carry a large
number of passengers. Additionally, because other heavy vehicles like
single unit trucks and heavy buses have the same heavy-duty engines as
combination trucks, the costs associated with installing the required
speed-limiting devices in these vehicles would be minimal. For these
reasons, the agency has tentatively concluded that it is appropriate to
subject all types of heavy vehicles to the speed-limiting device
requirements.
Regarding the GVWR threshold, NHTSA decided to focus the speed-
limiting device requirements on those vehicles that carry the heaviest
loads and for which small increases in speed have larger effects on the
force of impact in a crash. These vehicles would also be subject to
both FMCSA's regulations applicable to vehicles operated in interstate
commerce and states' compatible regulations adopted as a condition of
receiving Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grants.
Specifically, NHTSA considered how FMCSA and its state partners
could effectively enforce the proposed standard to realize the
potential safety benefits. These benefits result from maintaining the
speed-limiting devices after they are sold. In general, NHTSA does not
have the authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles or motor
vehicle equipment by vehicle owners. However, almost all of the
vehicles with a GVWR over 11,793.4 kg (26,000 pounds) are CMVs and
their maintenance is regulated by FMCSA through the FMCSRs.\49\ As
discussed throughout this notice, if NHTSA requires speed limiting
devices as requested in the petitions, FMCSA will simultaneously amend
the FMCSRs to ensure that CMVs with a GVWR over 26,000 pounds that
operate in interstate commerce are equipped and maintained with a speed
limiting device meeting the requirements of the FMVSS. Accordingly,
NHTSA is proposing to limit the applicability of the speed limiting
device requirements to vehicles with a GVWR over 11,793.4 kg (26,000
pounds) in order to ensure that these vehicles continue to be speed
limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Some vehicles covered by the FMVSS would not be covered by
the FMCSR. These vehicles include transit buses, motor homes, most
school buses, and CMVs in exclusively intrastate service. States may
voluntarily require CMVs in exclusively intrastate service through
FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, as discussed in
Section VII.D.1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA requests comment on the applicability of the proposed speed
limiting device requirements, specifically whether the proposed
requirements should apply to vehicles with a GVWR of 11,793.4 kg
(26,000 pounds) or lower. We are interested in the costs, if any, to
manufacturers of these lighter vehicles, as well as the costs to the
operators of these vehicles--and, if applicable, the operators'
customers--resulting from the additional travel time.
2. Proposed FMCSR
Consistent with the proposed FMVSS, the proposed FMCSR would also
apply to each multipurpose passenger carrying vehicle, truck, bus and
school bus (to the extent they fall under FMCSA jurisdiction) with a
gross vehicle weight rating of more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000
pounds).
FMCSA requests comment on the cost of enforcement of the proposed
FMCSR, training, new enforcement tools that may be required, and the
costs, if any, to law enforcement partner agencies.
C. Proposed FMVSS Requirements
NHTSA's general approach in developing performance requirements for
speed limiting devices was to identify key areas of performance
pertinent to the overall effectiveness of speed limiting devices, thus
reducing the severity of crashes, as well as to consider opportunities
to harmonize the proposal with other global regulations. Considering
that almost all vehicles covered by the proposed FMVSS are used for
commercial purposes, the proposed requirements also include performance
aspects to assist inspectors in the verification of the speed limiting
device setting and pertinent speed determination parameter settings.
The proposed requirements are generally consistent with those in
the UNECE regulation for vehicles with regard to limitation of their
maximum speed. These requirements are located in part I of UNECE R89.
While not all the provisions of the UNECE standard are pertinent to
NHTSA's proposed regulation, we have evaluated this and other standards
and have proposed specific text that best supports the purpose of the
proposed FMVSS.
1. Definitions
We are proposing three new definitions with respect to the speed
limiting device. The first definition is the set speed
(Vset). The set speed is the speed limiting device setting,
or the intended maximum cruising speed of the vehicle and the speed
reported through the OBD connection. The speed would be no greater than
a speed to be specified in a final rule implementing this proposal.
Additionally we are proposing a definition for the actual maximum
average cruising speed of the vehicle, which is referred to as the
stabilized speed (Vstab). Although we
[[Page 61956]]
provide a detailed test procedure for obtaining this speed, it is
generally the maximum speed that the vehicle can achieve on level
ground once the speed control device has stabilized. The
Vstab speed is required to be equal to the Vset
speed. We seek comment on the ability of manufacturers to build
equipment capable of meeting this requirement. Finally, the maximum
speed (Vmax) is the maximum speed that the vehicle can
achieve during the transitional or settling period prior to the vehicle
speed being stabilized. This is often referred to as the overshoot in a
control device. All three of these vehicle speed definitions have the
same general meaning as those used in the UNECE regulation.
2. Set Speed
NHTSA is proposing that, as manufactured and sold, each vehicle's
speed limiting device would be required to have a set speed of no
greater than a speed to be specified in a final rule implementing this
proposal. Although the petitions for rulemaking requested that NHTSA
permit manufacturers to set the speed limiting device at any speed up
to and including 68 mph, the agency has not proposed a specific set
speed. In Section X of this document and in the Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Draft
Environmental Assessment accompanying this proposal, NHTSA has
considered the benefits and costs of 60 mph, 65 mph, and 68 mph maximum
set speeds.
The agencies estimate that limiting the speed of heavy vehicles to
60 mph would save 162 to 498 lives annually, limiting the speed of
heavy vehicles to 65 mph would save 63 to 214 lives annually, and
limiting the speed of heavy vehicles to 68 mph would save 27 to 96
lives annually. Although we believe that the 60 mph alternative would
result in additional safety benefits, we are not able to quantify the
60 mph alternative with the same confidence as the 65 mph and 68 mph
alternatives.
NHTSA also examined maximum posted speed limits for heavy vehicles.
The following table shows the distribution of maximum posted speed
limits.
Table 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
States
Maximum posted speed limit for certain larger vehicles (including the
District of
Columbia)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
55 mph.................................................. 2
60 mph.................................................. 3
65 mph.................................................. 11
70 mph.................................................. 21
75 mph.................................................. 9
80 mph.................................................. 4
85 mph.................................................. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this joint rulemaking is to save lives by reducing
the severity of crashes involving heavy vehicles. NHTSA and FMCSA are
proposing to accomplish this by requiring that those vehicles be
equipped with speed limiting devices. The proposed rules are not
intended as a mechanism to enforce maximum speed limits set by States.
However, the agencies are mindful that the proposed rules would limit
the travel speed of heavy vehicles below the maximum posted speed
limits in some States. We have therefore considered the distribution of
State speed limits as one factor in deciding the appropriate set speed
requirement. The above table illustrates that the vast majority of
States (41 States) have maximum truck speed limits between 65 mph and
75 mph, with the most common maximum truck speed limits being 70 mph
(21 States) and 65 mph (11 States).
We have also examined data from EMA \50\ showing the factory speed
limiting device settings for trucks \51\ manufactured in 2010 and 2011.
By far, the single most common speed limiting device setting for the
332,530 vehicles manufactured during this period was 65 mph (24.8%--
82,474 vehicles). Trucking fleets generally custom order truck tractors
and request speed limiting device settings from the manufacturer based
on the costs and benefits of various maximum speeds. The high number of
vehicles set to 65 mph suggests that this is a reasonable maximum speed
at which to efficiently and safely transport goods, even if it is not
the optimum maximum speed for every company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ EMA, Vehicle Speed Limiter Settings--Ex Factory 2010 & 2011
(Nov. 2011).
\51\ EMA indicated that the vehicles included in the data
consist of mostly heavy-duty trucks and truck tractors with some
medium-duty trucks. EMA further indicated that the data included a
significant portion of the total heavy-duty production since the
start of 2010. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA will weigh all of these factors in choosing a maximum set
speed for newly manufactured large vehicles and FMCSA will weigh these
factors in considering what maximum set speed at which motor carriers
would be required to maintain speed limiters. The benefits estimates
indicate that substantially more lives would be saved if heavy vehicles
are limited to 65 mph versus 68 mph with an additional increase in
lives saved if heavy vehicles are limited to 60 mph instead of 65 mph.
However, the agencies will also consider State speed limits and the
economic impact on manufacturers and fleets including current speed
limiter settings and the potential for harmonization with Ontario and
Quebec maximum set speed requirements of 105 km/h (65 mph). NHTSA and
FMCSA will consider other maximum set speeds both within that range of
speeds and outside of it. NHTSA and FMCSA request comment on what an
appropriate maximum set speed would be and why that speed should be
chosen over other possible maximum set speeds.
We are proposing that the speed limiting device be permitted to
allow normal acceleration control for the purpose of gear changing. It
is important to provide acceleration control for the purpose of gear
changing in order to maintain vehicle drivability. We note that, as
proposed, the speed-limiting device must limit the speed of the vehicle
regardless of the gear selection. Additionally, we are proposing that
the maximum speed (overshoot) not exceed the stabilized speed by more
than 5 percent. Likewise, the stabilized speed must not exceed the set
speed.
3. Tampering and Modification of the Speed-Limiting Device
Unlike UNECE R89, NHTSA is not proposing any requirement on
manufacturers to make the speed limiting device tamper-resistant or to
restrict modification of the speed limiting device settings. In other
words, although the proposed FMVSS would require that the initial set
speed be not greater than a specified speed, a speed limiting device
could be capable of adjustment above the specified speed and still meet
the requirements of the proposed FMVSS. However, because the proposed
FMVSS would be reinforced by the proposed FMCSR, we expect that
virtually all of these vehicles would be limited to the specified
speed.
As described below, NHTSA is concerned about tampering and
modification of the speed limiting device settings after a vehicle is
sold. After considering various means of preventing these types of
activities as described below in the Regulatory Alternatives section,
the agency has tentatively decided not to include this type of
requirement because of the costs that such a requirement would impose
on manufacturers. NHTSA is also concerned about the feasibility of
[[Page 61957]]
establishing performance requirements that would be objective and
effective in resisting various methods of tampering.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The agency notes that some manufacturers may voluntarily
decide to install speed limiting systems with features to restrict
modification of the settings and/or make the device tamper-resistant
as part of their compliance approach under the fuel efficiency
program for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. Specifically, the fuel
efficiency program for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles permits
manufacturers to implement a fixed maximum vehicle speed through a
speed limiter feature and use the maximum speed as an input for the
model used for purposes of certification to the standards of the
fuel efficiency program (76 FR 57106, 57155 (Sep. 15, 2011)).
Although the speed limiter may be adjustable, compliance is based on
the highest adjustable speed setting. Speed settings that are
protected by encrypted controls or passwords are not considered when
determining the highest adjustable speed, and manufacturers are
required to use good engineering judgment to ensure that the speed
limiter is tamper resistant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, the agency is concerned about speed limiting device
setting adjustment and tampering that could allow vehicles to travel
faster than the specified maximum set speed. The agency is also
concerned about post-sale modification of the speed determination
parameters such that they do not match the equipment on the vehicle or
the failure to modify the parameters after replacing equipment. Either
of these actions could result in the vehicle being capable of traveling
at speeds higher than the set speed. Finally, the agency is concerned
about potential tampering with the speed limiting device, such as
hacking the ECU to disable the speed-limiting device, installing a
device that sends a false signal to the speed-limiting device, or
replacing the ECU with an ECU that does not limit the speed.
In contrast, NHTSA believes that some modifications should not be
restricted, like adjusting the set speed below the maximum specified
set speed and changing the speed determination parameter values as
necessary to reflect replacement equipment (e.g., equipping the vehicle
with different-size tires). These types of modifications do not
interfere with, and may even facilitate, vehicles continuing to operate
at speeds no greater than the maximum specified set speed after they
are sold. Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to require that speed-
limiting devices have some means of adjusting the speed determination
parameter values as necessary to reflect replacement equipment.
In order to deter those types of activities that would allow a
vehicle to travel above the maximum specified set speed, the proposed
FMVSS would be reinforced by the proposed FMCSR, which would require
motor carriers to maintain the speed limiting devices in accordance
with the requirements of the proposed FMVSS. For example, the FMCSR
would prohibit vehicle operators from adjusting the set speed above a
maximum specified set speed.
To assist in verifying the performance of the speed limiting device
while the vehicle is in use, NHTSA is proposing that the vehicle set
speed and the speed determination parameters, such as tire size and
gear ratios, be readable through the OBD connection. In addition to the
current speed limiting device settings, NHTSA is proposing that the
previous two setting modifications (i.e., the previous two
modifications of the set speed and the previous two modifications of
the speed determination parameters) be readable and include the time
and date when they were modified.
NHTSA seeks comment on the proposed speed limiting device setting
readability requirements. For example, is reporting the time and date
of setting modifications feasible or should some other value be
specified (e.g., mileage at the time of modification)? What are other
appropriate speed determination parameters, in addition to tire size
and gear ratios, that should be readable through the OBD connection?
Should the agency specify additional requirements to ensure that the
speed limiting device settings are readily accessible through the OBD
connection and in an easy-to-understand format in order to facilitate
enforcement, and, if so, what should those requirements be?
NHTSA also seeks comment on any alternative approach that would
allow inspectors to verify the speed limiting device settings at a
reduced cost.
4. Test Procedure and Performance Requirements
NHTSA is proposing a vehicle-level test that involves the
acceleration of the vehicle on a test track. The agency is proposing
various track and weather conditions, based on the widely utilized
UNECE regulation and other vehicle tests that are conducted on test
tracks, to ensure the repeatability of testing. The test begins with
the vehicle traveling at a steady speed that is below the set speed.
The vehicle is accelerated using a full positive action on the
accelerator control. Such action is maintained for at least 30 seconds
after the vehicle speed has been stabilized. During the testing, the
instantaneous vehicle speed is recorded during the testing in order to
establish the curve of speed versus time. A more detailed summary of
the proposed test procedure follows.
Vehicle conditions. The vehicle would be tested with the tire
pressure at the manufacturer's specified pressure in the unloaded
weight condition with a single operator.
Test Track conditions. The test surface would be a surface suitable
to enable stabilization speed to be maintained and be free from uneven
patches, with gradients not exceeding 2% and not varying by more than
1% excluding camber effects. The test track would be a paved surface
free from standing water, snow, or ice.
Ambient weather conditions. In order to prevent inconsistency in
the test, the test would be performed when the mean wind speed measured
was less than 5 m/s and the temperature between 45[emsp14][deg]F and
104[emsp14][deg]F. NHTSA is proposing a less stringent wind speed
condition than the UNECE requirement in order to maintain consistency
with other FMVSS track tests.
Test equipment. The speed measurement would be independent of the
vehicle speedometer and accurate within plus or minus 1 percent.
Running the test. The vehicle would be run at a speed 10 km/h below
the set speed and would be accelerated as much as possible using a full
positive action on the accelerator control. This action would be
maintained at least 30 seconds after the vehicle speed stabilized. The
instantaneous vehicle speed would be recorded during the testing in
order to establish the curve of speed versus time.
The speed versus time curve would then be evaluated in order to
find the stabilized speed and the maximum speed. Under the proposed
requirements, the maximum speed achieved during the test must be no
greater than 5 percent of the stabilized speed and the stabilized speed
must not exceed the set speed. The agency notes that this proposed
requirement is more stringent than the UNECE requirement, which
specifies that the stabilized speed must be within 5 percent or 5 km/h
of the set speed of the set speed. Adopting the UNECE tolerance would
mean that a vehicle could have a stabilized speed of 5 km/h (3 mph)
above the specified maximum set speed and still meet the proposed
requirements. NHTSA will choose a maximum set sped based primarily on
safety considerations with considerations also given to other benefits
including fuel savings and the costs of the rule including opportunity
costs due to slower deliveries. Whatever maximum speed is ultimately
chosen, it will be based on these considerations and allowing vehicles
to operate 5 km/h (3 mph) above the maximum set speed will lessen the
benefits associated with the chosen maximum set speed. NHTSA
[[Page 61958]]
seeks comment as to manufacturers' ability to meet this requirement.
Additionally, NHTSA is not proposing to include the acceleration
limits specified in the UNECE standard of 0.5 m/s\2\ within the first
ten seconds and 0.2 m/s\2\ beyond the first ten seconds (both measured
over a time greater than 0.1 s) of the vehicle first reaching the set
speed. We question if these acceleration values are achievable during
an on-road test. Our calculations indicate that such a requirement
limits the change in vehicle speed over any 0.1 second period to no
more than 0.045 mph.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE16.029
Given the extreme precision that would be required both of the
speed control device and the test equipment, NHTSA proposes not to
include the acceleration limits as specified in the UNECE standard. We
seek comment as to the necessity of an acceleration limit and, if
needed, what a reasonable limit could be.
D. Proposed FMCSR Requirements
FMCSA is proposing an FMCSR requiring each CMV with a GVWR of more
than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds) to 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 maximum speed. This maximum speed will be based on the
maximum speed chosen by NHTSA in a final rule implementing this
proposal. Motor carriers operating such vehicles in interstate commerce
would be required to maintain the speed limiting devices for the
service life of the vehicle.
1. Enforcement
FMCSA's roadside enforcement activities are limited by the small
size of its staff. The Agency therefore relies on its State partners
for enforcement of its safety rules at the roadside. Through the
Agency's Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), FMCSA
provides Federal grants to the States to support the adoption and
enforcement of compatible safety regulations. Therefore, FMCSA's
adoption of a rule requiring interstate motor carriers to maintain
speed limiting devices would be accompanied by the States' adoption of
compatible rules applicable to both interstate and intrastate motor
carriers pursuant to 49 CFR part 350.
The inclusion of the OBD feature for the speed limiting device
would enable FMCSA and its State partners to enforce the proposed rule
during roadside inspections, at the discretion of the Agency and its
State partners. The enforcement of the requirements could be conducted
in a targeted manner, periodically or randomly to provide an effective
deterrent to carriers tampering with or disabling the device to avoid
the need for the Agency and its State partners to consider changes to
the standard inspection procedures or increases in the amount of time
needed to complete a roadside inspection. FMCSA is again seeking
comment and information regarding the cost of enforcement of the
proposed FMCSR, training, new enforcement tools that may be required,
and the costs, if any, to law enforcement partner agencies.
In addition, State law enforcement officials responsible for motor
carrier safety oversight could cite CMV drivers for violations of the
speed limiting device requirements as part of traffic enforcement
activities. If the vehicle is observed to be operating in excess of a
posted speed limit greater than the maximum specified set speed, and
the vehicle was manufactured on or after the effective date of the
proposed rule, the speeding violation would then serve as prima facie
evidence that the speed limiting device was inoperative, or the setting
altered. And, the driver could be subject both to a speeding ticket and
motor carrier safety citation for operating a CMV with a speed limiting
device that failed to meet the requirements of the State's version of
the Federal requirement. Conversely, if the vehicle were clocked at the
maximum specified set speed in a 50-mph zone, the driver could be
ticketed for speeding, but the officer would make no assumption about
the effectiveness of the speed limiting device.
VIII. Regulatory Alternatives
In deciding on the approach proposed in this NPRM, NHTSA and FMCSA
have examined the following alternatives to this proposal.
A. Other Technologies Limiting Speed
NHTSA also requests comment on the feasibility of technologies
which would limit the speed of the vehicle to the speed limit of the
road, as an alternative option to the a requirement limiting vehicle
speed to a specified set speed. These technologies might include a GPS,
vision system, vehicle to infrastructure communication, or some other
autonomous vehicle technology. This could have the effect of reducing
fatalities while limiting the economic effects of this rule on roads
that have a posted speed above the maximum set speed. Heavy vehicle
operators could also potentially choose between vehicles equipped with
speed limiting devices set to a specified maximum set speed and
vehicles with GPS-based, vision based, or vehicle-to-infrastructure-
based, or other autonomous vehicle technology devices depending on
their needs.
Our preliminary conclusion is that requiring these technologies to
limit vehicle speed would not be feasible and/or cost-effective at this
time, but the agencies are seeking comments from the public on this
preliminary conclusion. The agencies would not publish a final rule
requiring speed limiters using these technologies without first
publishing another proposed rule addressing them. The agencies also
request comment on whether they should consider allowing GPS-based
speed limiters, which adjust to the actual speed limits on roads, to be
used as an alternative means of compliance if conventional speed
limiters are required.
The agencies understand that some trucking fleets use similar
devices for monitoring purposes, but we have several questions about
regulating a GPS-based, vision based, or vehicle-to-infrastructure-
based device, and we invite comments on the following areas:
What would be the costs associated with installing and
maintaining a GPS-based, vision based, or vehicle-to-infrastructure-
based speed limiting device?
How easy would it be for a driver to interfere with the
ability to receive speed limit information without detection and
thereby travel faster than the posted speed limit? Are there tamper-
resistant technologies available to limit such action?
What is the best method for determining the posted speed
limit on a given section of highway? For GPS-based systems, would the
speed map need to be managed federally and made available to the
vehicle during operation or could a third-party map be usable
[[Page 61959]]
considering the certification requirement?
How would such a device handle posted speed changes such
as dual day/night speed limits and construction zones?
Is the current GPS coverage sufficient for such a device?
How would temporary coverage outages be addressed for enforcement
purposes?
What would be the framework for a compliance test
procedure?
What are the limitations of the technologies in
applications such as false positives?
Should a speed-limiting device that is correlated to the
highway speed still have a set speed lower than the posted speed limit?
B. Tampering
As discussed above, at this time NHTSA is proposing to require a
speed limiting device that reports the last two modifications of the
set speed and the last two modifications of the speed determination
parameters, along with the time and date of the modifications. NHTSA is
not proposing any requirement on manufacturers to make the speed
limiting device tamper resistant or to restrict modification of the
speed limiting device settings. In other words, although the proposed
FMVSS would require that the initial set speed be not greater than a
maximum specified speed, a speed limiting device could be capable of
adjustment above the maximum specified speed and still be compliant
with the proposed FMVSS.
Although NHTSA is concerned about tampering and modification of the
speed limiting device settings after a vehicle is sold, after
considering various means of preventing these type of activities the
agency has tentatively decided not to include a requirement to prevent
tampering because of the costs that such requirements would impose on
manufacturers and because we are concerned about the feasibility of
establishing performance requirements that would be objective and
effective in resisting various methods of tampering.
In general, there are several design approaches for restricting
modification of the speed limiting device settings and/or making the
ECU tamper resistant, namely through passwords (Pass Code) and coding
of the device using hardware (Hard Code). The Pass Code design approach
has two options. The first Pass Code option is to set the speed
limiting device setting at the OEM factory. With the first Pass Code
option, subsequent owners would be able to legitimately change the
setting if vehicle components that would directly affect the speed
limiting device performance are altered and recalibration is necessary.
However, speed limiting devices with the first Pass Code option would
not be tamper resistant. The second option is to set speed limiting
device setting at the OEM factory and make it ``factory password
protected.'' With the second Pass Code option, vehicle owners would
have to make a formal request to either the vehicle or engine
manufacturers to change the setting. According to EMA, if a vehicle
owner needed to make any subsequent changes, it would cost
approximately $300 per vehicle with the second Pass Code option. The
Hard Code design approach is to hardcode the speed limiting device set
speed in the ECU, based on characteristics of each vehicle produced.
The Hard Code option would eliminate all possibilities of subsequent
changes unless the entire ECU is replaced. With this approach,
subsequent ECU changes would cost owners $2,000 or more.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Truck Manufacturers Association (EMA), ``Informational
Meeting with NHTSA Speed Limiter Tamperproofing'', July 9, 2007,
NHTSA-2007-26851-3841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the costs to manufacturers and vehicle owners that
would result, such requirements would place an unrealistic burden on
manufacturers to certify that equipment will resist methods of
tampering that may be unknown at the time of certification. Although a
basic password requirement may seem straightforward, establishing
specific objective performance requirements for a password device that
resists hacking would be challenging, and such requirements may not
ultimately achieve the desired outcome of preventing tampering.
Additionally, hacking methods that are unknown to the agency or to
manufacturers could compromise such a tamper-resistant device. In the
future, it may be possible to fool even a speed-limiting device that is
hard coded into the ECU by providing false input signal.
NHTSA is also concerned that such devices could interfere with the
types of modifications that NHTSA believes should not be restricted,
like adjusting the set speed within the range of speeds up to the
maximum specified set speed and changing the speed determination
parameter values as necessary to reflect replacement equipment (e.g.,
equipping the vehicle with different-size tires). These types of
modifications do not interfere with, and may even facilitate, vehicles
continuing to operate at speeds no greater than the maximum specified
set speed after they are sold.
Given these concerns and the additional costs to vehicle
manufacturers from installing devices that restrict modification of the
speed limiting device settings and/or are tamper-resistant, NHTSA is
not proposing to include these requirements. However, we invite comment
on these various means of restricting modification of the speed
limiting device, including their effectiveness and cost, as well as
whether objective performance requirements can be established.
FMCSA proposes to enforce NHTSA's speed limiting device
requirements for vehicles manufactured after the effective date of the
FMVSS. Specifically, drivers and carriers would be subject to Federal
civil penalties if they are determined to have operated CMVs with a
GVWR of more than 26,000 pounds in interstate commerce when the speed
limiting device is (1) not functioning, or (2) set at a maximum speed
in excess of the maximum specified set speed. They would be subject to
Federal civil penalties of up to $2,750 for drivers and up to $11,000
for employers who allow or require drivers to operate CMVs with speed
limiting devices set at speeds greater than the maximum specified set
speed.
If a speed limiting device is not functioning, drivers and carriers
could avoid violations by driving no faster than the maximum specified
set speed until the vehicle is repaired. Under 49 CFR part 396, drivers
are required to prepare driver vehicle inspection reports (DVIRs) which
document all defects or deficiencies observed by or reported to the
driver during the work day. At any time the driver observes that the
vehicle can exceed the maximum specified set speed, he or she should
document the problem on the DVIR, which triggers a duty on the part of
the motor carrier, upon receipt of the report, to correct the problem.
We are interested in receiving comments on ways to read the set
speed and speed determination parameters other than through the OBD
connection. Comments should consider ways to reduce the equipment cost
required for enforcement officials based on roadside and facility-based
enforcement programs.
C. Test Procedures
NHTSA is proposing a test procedure that is similar to that in the
UNECE R89 regulation, which is widely used in many parts of the world,
as opposed to an independent test track procedure. We believe this
approach limits the cost of certification to manufacturers and
increases their ability to use common
[[Page 61960]]
engineering designs already included in the ECUs installed on vehicles
around the world.
The European standard includes the additional testing methods of
vehicle dynamometer and engine dynamometer. These test methods may
provide additional flexibility for manufacturers that are unable to use
a test track, or during unfair weather conditions. We seek comment on
whether NHTSA should consider these test methods as an option to our
proposed track test.
D. Electromagnetic Interference
Unlike the UNECE regulation, NHTSA has chosen not to include an
electromagnetic disturbance requirement in the proposed FMVSS. The
agency is concerned that speed limiting devices, as well as all safety
critical electronic equipment, operate within the installed environment
with respect to electromagnetic interference (EMI). However, if the
agency finds a safety need to pursue EMI requirements, it will likely
be conducted in a broad way that covers various electronic devices. At
this time, the agency does not intend to apply EMI requirements on an
ad hoc basis to specific regulations. The agency seeks comment on
whether the EMI requirements of the UNECE regulation should be included
in the FMVSS.
IX. Other Issues
A. Retrofitting
Road Safe America requested in its petition that all trucks
manufactured after 1990 be required to be equipped with electronic
speed governors. NHTSA is again seeking comment and information
regarding the possibility of requiring all multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks and buses manufactured after 1990 with a gross vehicle
weight rating of more than 11,793.4 kg (26,000 pounds) to be
retrofitted with electronic speed limiters.
The Secretary of Transportation has authority to promulgate safety
standards for ``commercial motor vehicles and equipment subsequent to
initial manufacture.'' \54\ The Office of the Secretary has delegated
authority to NHTSA to: ``promulgate safety standards for commercial
motor vehicles and equipment subsequent to initial manufacture when the
standards are based upon and similar to a [FMVSS] promulgated, either
simultaneously or previously, under chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.''
\55\ Additionally, FMCSA is authorized to enforce the safety standards
applicable to CMVs operating in interstate commerce.\56\ We request
information on several issues relating to retrofitting used vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106-
159, 101(f), 113 Stat. 1748 (Dec. 9, 1999).
\55\ 49 CFR 1.95(c).
\56\ 49 U.S.C. 31136(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek to know more about the technical and economic feasibility
of a retrofit requirement. In its comment to our 2007 Request for
Comments, EMA expressed concern about retrofitting all post-1990
trucks. EMA's first concern related to retrofitting vehicles
manufactured from 1990 to approximately 1994 to 1996, which were
frequently equipped with mechanically controlled engines with
mechanical speed limiting devices. EMA indicated that it would be
impractical to retrofit these vehicles with modern ECUs and they
estimated that it would cost $1,000 to $1,500 per vehicle to retrofit
those vehicles currently without ECUs with a mechanical speed limiting
device. EMA's second concern related to retrofitting ECU-equipped
vehicles (i.e. post 1994 to1996 vehicles) with tamper-proof speed
limiting devices. EMA described three approaches to retrofitting these
vehicles with varying degrees of tamper protection. The estimated costs
of these retrofit approaches ranged from $100 to $2,000 per vehicle,
and EMA estimated that one million vehicles would have to be
retrofitted. Additionally, two of the three approaches would require
redesigning the software and/or hardware of each engine model and would
entail additional costs ranging from $2,500,000 to $10,000,000 per
engine model. EMA estimated there are 40 engine control devices from
1990 to the present that would have to be modified.
Hino Motors submitted a comment stating that it does not support
the retrofitting of trucks that were manufactured with mechanically
controlled engine devices, noting that it manufactured trucks with
mechanically controlled engine devices through the model year 2003. The
company stated that retrofitting older mechanically controlled engine
devices with electronic controls would be costly to vehicle owners.
AAA requested that the agency explore the idea of retrofitting
trucks currently on the road.
Based on the comments received, NHTSA is concerned that requiring
the retrofitting of CMVs with speed limiting devices could be costly.
Further, we understand that requiring retrofitted vehicles to meet
every aspect of the performance requirements set forth in this proposal
would impose additional costs beyond the costs associated with setting
the speed limit. However, a number of these requirements are designed
to assist enforcement personnel in the verification of the speed
limiting device setting and pertinent vehicle parameter settings, and
both NHTSA and FMCSA are concerned about the practicability of roadside
enforcement if these were not included in any retrofit requirements.
Given the agencies' concerns about technical feasibility, cost,
enforcement, and impacts on small businesses, we are seeking public
comment to improve our understanding of the real-world impact of
implementing a speed limiting device retrofit requirement on existing
vehicles and whether it is appropriate to have different requirements
for these vehicles.
Retrofit Requirements
Please explain why the agency should (or should not) consider
requiring a speed limiting device requirement for existing heavy
vehicles. Please discuss:
a. What portions of the existing heavy vehicle fleet are not
equipped with speed limiting devices, are equipped with mechanical
speed limiting devices, or are equipped with ECUs? The agencies are
also seeking this type of information for the fleets owned by small
businesses.
b. How old are vehicles in each of these categories and what are
their expected lifetimes? The agencies are also seeking this type of
information for the fleets owned by small businesses.
c. In what model year did manufacturers cease manufacturing
vehicles equipped with mechanically controlled engines?
d. Is it technically feasible to retrofit a vehicle equipped with a
mechanically controlled engine with an ECU and if feasible what would
be the cost to do so?
e. What technically feasible approaches, if any, are there to
retrofit mechanical speed limiting devices so that they have some level
of tamper resistance, and what are the costs of such approaches?
f. What technologies are available to increase the tamper
resistance of speed limiting devices in ECUs and what would be the cost
to retrofit existing vehicles with these technologies?
As an alternative to a retrofit requirement, the agencies request
comment on whether to extend the set speed requirement to all CMVs with
a GVWR of more than 26,000 pounds that are already equipped with a
speed limiting device and how such a
[[Page 61961]]
requirement would impact our cost benefit analysis. As explained
throughout this document, all vehicles with electronic engine control
units (ECUs) are generally electronically speed governed to prevent
engine or other damage to the vehicle, and ECUs have been installed in
most heavy trucks since 1999. Additionally, a number of older vehicles
are equipped with mechanical speed limiting devices. Accordingly, in
order to realize the benefits associated with limiting heavy vehicles'
speed in a shorter timeframe without imposing any additional equipment
costs, the agencies request comment on whether to require that the
speed limiting devices in these older CMVs be set to a speed not
greater than a maximum specified set speed.
B. Lead Time
If the proposed FMVSS is established, NHTSA is proposing a
compliance date of the first September 1 three years after publication
of a final rule. For illustration purposes, the proposed regulatory
text uses the date of September 1, 2020. We believe that this lead time
is appropriate as some design, testing, and development will be
necessary to certify compliance to the new requirements. Three years is
also consistent with the MCSAP time period for States to adopt
regulations consistent with FMCSA standards.
X. Overview of Benefits and Costs
Based on our review of the available data, if heavy vehicles were
limited, it would reduce the severity of crashes involving these
vehicles and reduce the resulting fatalities and injuries. The proposed
rules would require that each vehicle, as manufactured and sold, have
its speed limiting device set to a speed not greater than a maximum
specified set speed, and that motor carriers maintain the set speed at
a speed not greater than the maximum specified set speed. We expect
that, as a result of this joint rulemaking, virtually all of these
vehicles would be limited to that speed. In order to explore the
benefits and costs of requiring speed limiters to be set at a variety
of speeds, we have estimated the benefits and costs assuming that the
affected vehicles are limited to speeds no greater than 60 mph, 65 mph,
and 68 mph.
A. Benefits
1. Safety Benefits
As explained above, most studies examining the relationship between
travel speed and crash severity have concluded that the severity of a
crash increases with increased travel speed.\57\ The relationship
between travel speed and avoiding crashes is less certain, as described
in detail in NHTSA's 1991 Report to Congress \58\ and as indicated by
the differing opinions of commenters who responded to the 2007 Request
for Comments. The FMCSA study cited above showed a reduced crash risk
with speed limiting devices. However, the lack of adequate exposure
data, in terms of miles driven, makes it difficult to estimate the
safety benefits of crashes avoided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Johnson, Steven L. & Pawar, Naveen, Mack-Blackwell Rural
Transportation Center, Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-
Automobile Speed Limits Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways,
MBTC 2048 (Nov. 2005).
\58\ NHTSA, Commercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Safety, DOT
HS 807 725 (May 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters who opposed the ATA and Road Safe petitions contend that
the creation of speed differentials between cars and heavy vehicles
would increase crash risk. There have been a number of studies
conducted on the impact of speed differentials between cars and heavy
vehicles and whether differential speeds increase vehicle interactions
and crash risk. Two studies, one conducted by the Virginia
Transportation Research Council (VTRC) and disseminated under
sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the other
conducted by the University of Idaho, observed no consistent safety
effects of differential speed limits compared to uniform speed
limits.\59\ Other studies have found an increased crash risk when
vehicles deviate from the mean speed, though those studies' conclusions
differed as to the magnitude of the deviation from the mean speed that
was associated with an increased crash risk. A full discussion of these
studies can be found in the PRIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ VTRC, The Safety Impacts of Differential Speed Limits on
Rural Interstate Highways, FHWA-HRT-04-156, September 2004; Idaho
Transportation Department Planning Division. Evaluation of the
Impacts of Reducing Truck Speeds on Interstate Highways in Idaho, -
Phase III, Final Report Dec., 2000, National Institute for Advanced
Transportation Technology University of Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering this research and the difficulty in estimating
the effect of speed limiting devices on crash risk, the agencies have
chosen not to include an estimate of crashes avoided in the PRIA and to
only estimate the benefits of reducing crash severity. Although this
approach is conservative and the agencies believe that speed limiting
devices will likely reduce both the severity and risk of crashes, the
agencies have greater confidence that the estimated benefits described
below will be fully realized because, by focusing on crash severity,
the agencies are able to isolate more effectively the effects of speed
reduction on safety. We invite public comment on these determinations
and any additional information or studies related to the impact of
speed limiting devices on crash avoidance that we should consider in
estimating the effect of this rulemaking.
Using Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and National
Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS GES) crash
data over the 10-year period between 2004 and 2013, the agencies
examined crashes involving heavy vehicles (i.e., vehicles with a GVWR
of over 11,793.4 kg (26,000 pounds)) on roads with posted speed limits
of 55 mph or above. The agency focused on crashes in which the speed of
the heavy vehicle likely contributed to the severity of the crash
(e.g., single vehicle crashes, crashes in which the heavy vehicle was
the striking vehicle. The agencies estimated that these crashes
resulted in 10,440 fatalities \60\ from 2004 to 2013 (approximately
1,044 annually).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The fatality numbers were also adjusted to reflect the
effect of new heavy vehicle requirements that have been adopted by
NHTSA within the last several years (e.g., the final rule adopting
seat belt requirements for passenger seats in buses (78 FR 70415
(Nov. 25, 2013), the final rule to adopt electronic stability
control requirements for heavy vehicles (80 FR 36049 (June 23,
2015)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the 10,440 fatalities, 9,747 resulted from crashes involving
combination trucks, 442 resulted from crashes involving single unit
trucks and the remaining 251 resulted from crashes involving buses.
In order to estimate the safety benefits,\61\ we calculated the
risk that a heavy vehicle will be involved in a crash that results in a
fatality versus a crash that results in an injury or property damage on
roads with posted speed limits of 55 mph and higher, which we refer to
as the ``vehicle-based model.'' \62\ Similarly, we calculated the risk
that a person would suffer fatal injury in a crash involving a heavy
vehicle versus a crash that would involve nonfatal injury or property
damage only on roads with posted speed limits of 55 mph or higher,
which we refer to as the ``person-based model.'' We then used the
probability of fatal crash (or odds ratio) to derive the percent
reduction in the fatal crash rate
[[Page 61962]]
that would result from reducing the travel speed of heavy vehicles
traveling at speeds above a set speed to the set speed (i.e., how would
the probability of a heavy vehicle crash being fatal change if the
vehicles were limited to a set speed?). Using this method, we estimate
that limiting heavy vehicles to 68 mph would save 27 to 96 lives
annually, limiting heavy vehicles to 65 mph would save 63 to 214 lives
annually, and limiting heavy vehicles to 60 mph would save 162 to 498
lives annually.\63\ Although we believe that the 60 mph alternative
would result in additional safety benefits, we are not able to quantify
the 60 mph alternative with the same confidence as the 65 mph and 68
mph alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ For a full discussion of the agency's safety benefits
methodology, please consult the PRIA.
\62\ The fatal crash rate represents the ratio of the number of
vehicles involved in fatal crashes to the total number of vehicles
involved in all police-reported crashes. This value is calculated
using the crash data from the FARS & GES databases. For example, if
there are 100 vehicles involved in police-reported crashes, and 10
of those vehicles are involved in fatal crashes, the fatal crash
rate is 1/10 or 0.1.
\63\ The number of lives saved for each category of crashes is
rounded to the nearest integer, while the total lives saved is
calculated using the unrounded estimates of lives saved for each
category of crashes. This creates a slight discrepancy between the
total lives saved and the sum of the rounded estimates of lives
saved for each crash category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have estimated the number of injuries that would be prevented
using the ratio of fatalities to injuries resulting from certain
crashes involving combination trucks.\64\ This method uses the number
of lives saved to estimate the corresponding number of injuries
prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Specifically, the agencies relied on data from crashes
involving combination trucks striking other vehicles from behind to
determine the fatality-to-injury ratio. The agencies used this data
because the agencies believe that these are the types of crashes
(and injuries) that are most likely to be affected by the proposed
speed-limiting requirements. As discussed throughout the notice,
combination truck crashes make up the vast majority of the target
population, and the agency believes that those crashes in which a
heavy vehicle hits another vehicle from behind are the most common
type that would be affected by this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on range of fatalities prevented, this rulemaking would
prevent 179 to 551 serious injuries \65\ and 3,356 to 10,306 minor
injuries with a maximum set speed of 60 mph, 70 to 236 serious injuries
and 1,299 to 4,535 minor injuries with a maximum set speed of 65 mph,
and 30 to 106 serious injuries and 560 to 1,987 minor injuries with a
maximum set speed of 68 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ The fatality-to-injury ratios for AIS 3, AIS 4, and AIS 5
injuries coincidentally add up to 1. Accordingly, the number of
serious injuries prevented (AIS 3-5) is estimated to be equivalent
to the number of fatalities. Please consult the PRIA for additional
discussion on how the agencies estimated the injuries prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality and injury benefits are monetized in two parts. The first
part is based on the value of a statistical life (VSL). Value-of-life
measurements inherently include a value for lost quality of life plus a
valuation of lost material consumption that is represented by measuring
consumers' after-tax lost productivity. Additionally, there are costs
to society incurred as a result of an injury or fatality that are
separate from the value of the life saved/injury prevented. Benefits
occur from reducing these economic costs of crashes by reducing the
number of people injured or killed. These items include: reducing costs
for medical care, emergency services, insurance administrative costs,
workplace costs, and legal costs. These monetized benefits are
reflected in Table 7 below. In addition to the safety benefits, this
rule would result in reduced property damage as a result of making
crashes less severe.
Table 6--Annual Fatalities Prevented Speed Limiting Devices for Combination Trucks, Single Unit Trucks and Buses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 mph 65 mph 68 mph
Type -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low High Low High Low High
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combination trucks...................................... 159 472 62 204 27 92
Single-unit trucks...................................... 3 14 1 5 0 2
Buses................................................... 0 12 0 5 0 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total lives saved................................... 162 498 63 214 27 96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The numbers were rounded to the nearest integer.
Table 7--Benefits From Reduced Fatalities, Injuries, and Property Damage Savings, 7% Discount
[In millions of 2013 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 mph 65 mph 68 mph
Benefits -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low estimate High estimate Low estimate High estimate Low estimate High estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combination Trucks...................................... $1,819 $5,382 $706 $2,322 $304 $1,048
Single-unit trucks...................................... 30 155 10 53 4 21
Buses................................................... 0 139 0 58 0 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,849 5,676 716 2,433 308 1,093
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Fuel Saving Benefits
In addition to the safety benefits, the proposed rules would result
in a reduction in fuel consumption due to increased fuel efficiency. To
determine the fuel savings, the agencies used NASS GES and FARS data to
estimate VMT on different types of roads (e.g., 55 mph roads, 60 mph
roads, etc.) and State data to estimate the actual travel speeds of
heavy vehicles on those roads. The agencies separately calculated fuel
savings based on current regulatory requirements and the proposed phase
2 medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency rules.\66\ The agencies only
estimated fuel savings for 65 mph and 68 mph speed limiters. The fuel
savings for 60 mph speed limiters are assumed to be equal to the fuel
savings from 65 mph speed limiters. The medium- and heavy-duty fuel
efficiency program accounts for speed limiters set to speeds less than
65 mph in assessing compliance with the fuel economy standards.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See 80 FR 40,137 (July 13, 2015).
\67\ The agency has considered the effect of the medium- and
heavy-vehicle fuel efficiency program on the fuel savings estimates
for this proposal to ensure that the agency does not include fuel
savings already accounted for in the heavy vehicle fuel efficiency
final rule if manufacturers use speed limiting systems that satisfy
the requirements of both rules. This issue is fully addressed below
in the agencies' discussion of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The
agency has also adjusted the baseline fuel economy to account for
the improvements to fuel economy as a result of the medium- and
heavy-vehicle fuel efficiency program. The agency has also
considered the effects of improvement in fuel economy as a result of
the medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency program and has taken
account of them in fuel savings estimates. These issues are
discussed in detail in the PRIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61963]]
The agencies predictions for fuel savings and total benefits,
including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ To determine the benefits of reduced GHG emissions, the
agencies estimated the benefits associated with four different
values of a one metric ton carbon dioxide reduction (model average
at 2.5% discount rate, 3%, and 5%; 95th percentile at 3%). These
values were developed by an interagency working group to allow
agencies to incorporate the social benefits of reducing carbon
dioxide emissions into their cost-benefit analyses. See, Interagency
Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government,
Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of
Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866
(rev. Nov. 2013), available at, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf. The agencies have used the
3 percent discount rate value, which the interagency group deemed as
the central value, in the primary cost-benefit analysis. For
internal consistency, the annual benefits are discounted back to net
present value using the same discount rate as the social cost of
carbon estimate (3 percent) rather than 3 percent and 7 percent. A
complete list of values for the four estimates (model average at
2.5% discount rate, 3%, and 5%; 95th percentile at 3%) is included
in the PRIA.
Table 8--Summary of Fuel Savings Speed Limiting Devices
[In millions] *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Monetized
Fuel saved, fuel Fuel saved, fuel
65 mph (in savings, 65 68 mph savings, 68
Vehicle type millions mph (in (in mph (in
of millions of millions of millions of
gallons) 2013 gallons) 2013
dollars) dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate Based on Current Combination Trucks... 377 $1,220 169 $545
Regulatory Requirements.
Single Unit Trucks... 36 113 15 48
Buses................ 9 30 4 12
-----------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... ..................... 423 1,363 188 605
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate Based on Proposed Phase 2 Combination Trucks... 304 $984 136 $440
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Single Unit Trucks... 32 98 13 41
Efficiency Program Requirements.
Buses................ 8 26 3 11
-----------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... ..................... 344 1,108 153 492
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The numbers were rounded to the nearest integer.
Table 9--Annual Total Benefits, 7% Discount
[In millions of 2013 dollars] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 mph 65 mph 68 mph
Benefits -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High estimate Low estimate Low estimate High estimate Low estimate High estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combination Trucks...................................... $2,571 $6,134 $1,458 $3,074 $640 $1,384
Single-unit trucks...................................... 105 230 85 128 36 53
Buses................................................... 20 159 21 79 8 32
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 2,695 6,522 1,564 3,281 684 1,469
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers were rounded to the nearest integer.
B. Costs
1. Heavy Vehicle Manufacturers
For manufacturers, NHTSA expects the costs associated with the
proposed FMVSS to be insignificant for new heavy vehicles because these
vehicles already use ECUs for engine control. Regarding compliance test
costs, truck manufacturers can use any appropriate method to certify to
the performance requirements, including engineering analysis/
calculation, computer simulation, and track testing. The agency
believes that manufacturers will not need any tests additional to those
they and their suppliers are currently conducting to verify the
performance specifications.
2. Societal Costs Associated With the Operation of Heavy Vehicles
This joint rulemaking would impose societal costs since the
proposed speed setting will decrease the travel speed for trucks
currently traveling faster than the maximum specified set speed (the
same work will be done, but it will take longer to do it). This will
result in increased travel time and potentially longer delivery times
and a loss of a national resource. We have also accounted for a loss of
value of goods as a result of increased travel time. In order to
compensate for the increased travel time, trucking and bus companies
would need to require current operators drive longer hours (within
hours of service limits), hire additional operators, and use team
driving strategies in some cases. We estimate the cost of this added
time to be $1,534 million annually for 60 mph speed limiters, $514
million annually for 65 mph speed limiters, and $206 million annually
for 68 mph speed limiters assuming a 7 percent discount rate. However,
the estimated fuel savings offset these costs. In other words, even
without considering the safety benefits, this joint rulemaking would be
cost beneficial.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Additionally, although the purpose of this rulemaking is to
reduce the severity of heavy vehicle crashes and not to enforce
posted speed limits, limiting heavy vehicle speed would likely
drastically reduce the amount of speeding citations received by
heavy vehicle operators on roads with posted speed limits of 65 mph
and greater. These citations involve a number of economic effects on
operators, including the fine assessed against the operator and the
reduction in productivity from being pulled over to the side of the
road. Additionally, commercial vehicle operators face additional
potential costs because they can be disqualified from operating a
commercial motor vehicle after two or more excessive speeding
citations (49 CFR 383.51), which could result in a loss of income
during the suspension period. Accordingly, the reduced number of
traffic citations would offset some of the costs to operators from
speed limiting heavy vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61964]]
3. Impacts on Small Trucking and Motorcoach Businesses
Although the proposed rules would apply to all heavy vehicles, the
agencies' analysis indicates that this joint rulemaking could put
owner-operators and small fleet owners, particularly those not using
team driving strategies, at a disadvantage in some circumstances.
Currently, there are transport jobs that small trucking companies could
bid on and arrive one day sooner compared to a firm that already
voluntarily uses a speed limiting device, if the small trucking company
drives at 75 mph, which is the speed limit on some roads. Thus, it is
likely that there are some jobs where there is an apparent competitive
advantage to being able to drive faster. Some small businesses
currently traveling at higher speeds might not be able to expand
quickly enough to make the extra trips necessary to compensate for the
increased travel times resulting from limiting their speed. Instead of
these small independent trucking companies buying new trucks and/or
hiring additional drivers, we expect that large trucking companies
would absorb the additional cargo with their reserve capacity of trucks
and drivers.
Although the agencies do not expect additional costs to the
trucking industry as a whole in the near future from this rulemaking,
small trucking companies, especially independent owner-operators, would
be less profitable with speed limiting devices set. We have very
limited data to predict how the affected owner-operators would deal
with the increase in delivery times. We expect that some of the
affected owner-operators would work for trucking companies as
independent contractors. If all of the affected owner-operators worked
for trucking companies as independent contractors, they would lose $54
million in labor income. Our data is even more limited for entities
that operate buses, but we expect that some small motorcoach companies
may have to hire additional drivers to compensate for the increased
travel times resulting from speed limiting devices.
We request comment on the agencies' assumptions regarding how this
rulemaking would affect small heavy vehicle operators, and we request
comment on the type and magnitude of that effect.
Although this rulemaking is expected to result in large fuel
savings to the trucking industry as a whole, the agencies have limited
data on the travel speeds of and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by trucks
operated by small companies as compared to trucks operated by large
companies. Accordingly, it is difficult to estimate the relative fuel
savings for small companies. However, we have anecdotal evidence
suggesting that the VMT by trucks operated by small companies is 30
percent of the total VMT by all commercial vehicles. Assuming that
there is no difference in travel speed between trucks operated by small
companies and trucks operated by large companies, 30 percent of the
fuel savings resulting from the proposed rule would be realized by
small trucking companies. In order to improve our estimate, which, as
mentioned above, is based on limited data and certain assumptions, the
agencies request comments on VMT and vehicle travel speed for different
sizes of truck carriers and bus companies.
C. Net Impact
These proposed rules are cost beneficial. Combining the value of
the ELS, the property savings, and the fuel savings, the total benefits
are greater than the estimated cost, even assuming that the proposed
rule would result in the low benefits estimate.
Table 11--Overall Net Benefits to Heavy Vehicle Industries Associated With Speed Limiters, 7% Discount
[In millions, 2013 dollars] *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 mph 65 mph 68 mph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Mininum Maximum Mininum Maximum Mininum Maximum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits.......................................... $2,695 6,522 1,564 3,281 684 1,469
Total Costs............................................. 1,561 1,561 523 523 209 209
Net Benefit............................................. 1,136 4,964 1,039 2,757 475 1,260
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The estimates may not add up precisely due to rounding
For further explanation of the estimated benefits and costs, see
the PRIA provided in the docket for this proposal.
XI. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Comments may be submitted to the docket electronically by logging
onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
You may also submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
[[Page 61965]]
omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/statistical_policy_and_research/data_quality_guidelines/index.html.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
Will NHTSA and FMCSA consider late comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on
the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
XII. Rulemaking Analyses
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies require the agencies to make
determinations as to whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
aforementioned Executive Orders. Executive Order 12866 defines a
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
We have considered the potential impact of this proposal under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This joint
rulemaking is economically significant because it is likely to have an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Thus it was
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866 and
E.O. 13563. The rulemaking action has also been determined to be
significant under the Department's regulatory policies and procedures.
The Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) fully discusses the
estimated costs and benefits of this joint rulemaking action. The costs
and benefits are also summarized in Section X of this preamble.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354, 94
Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended), whenever an agency is
required to publish an NPRM or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a proposal will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The agencies believe that the proposed rules will affect small
businesses, and may have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small businesses. Accordingly, we have included an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis in the PRIA detailing these effects and
summarized these effects in Section X.B. of this preamble. We summarize
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis below.
Agencies are required to prepare and make available for public
comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing
the impact of proposed rules on small entities if the agency determines
that the rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Each IRFA must contain:
(1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, record keeping and
other compliance requirements of a proposed rule including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of
[[Page 61966]]
professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule;
(6) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain
a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule
which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.
Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered
As described in greater deal above, studies examining the
relationship between travel speed and crash severity have confirmed the
common-sense conclusion that the severity of a crash increases with
increased travel speed.\70\ In 2006, NHTSA received a petition from the
American Trucking Associations (ATA) to initiate a rulemaking to amend
the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to require vehicle
manufacturers 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). Concurrently, the ATA petitioned the FMCSA to amend the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) to prohibit owners and
operators from adjusting the speed limiting devices in affected
vehicles above 68 mph. That same year, FMCSA received a petition from
Road Safe America to initiate a rulemaking to amend the FMCSRs to
require that all trucks manufactured after 1990 with a GVWR greater
than 26,000 pounds be equipped with electronic speed limiting systems
set at not more than 68 mph. NHTSA published a notice in 2011 granting
the petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Johnson, Steven L. & Pawar, Naveen, Mack-Blackwell Rural
Transportation Center, College of Engineering, University of
Arkansas, Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile Speed
Limits Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways, MBTC 2048 (Nov.
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After conducting an analysis of crash data and data on heavy
vehicle travel speeds, the agencies have determined that reducing heavy
vehicle travel speed would reduce the severity of crashes involving
these vehicles and reduce the number of resulting fatalities. After
analyzing several set speeds, including 60 mph, 65 mph, and 68 mph,
NHTSA is proposing to heavy vehicles to be equipped with a speed
limiting system. As manufactured and sold, each of these vehicles would
be required by NHTSA to have a speed limiting device to set a
particular speed.
FMCSA is proposing a complementary Federal motor carrier safety
regulation (FMCSR) requiring multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks,
and buses and school buses with a GVWR of more than 11,793.4 kilograms
(26,000 pounds) to be equipped with a speed limiting system meeting the
requirements of the proposed FMVSS applicable to the vehicle at the
time of manufacture. Motor carriers operating such vehicles in
interstate commerce would be required to maintain the speed limiting
systems for the service life of the vehicle.
Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposal or Final Rule
The objectives of the proposed rule are to reduce the severity of
crashes involving heavy vehicles and reduce the number of fatalities.
Since this NPRM would apply both to vehicle manufacturers and motor
carriers that purchase and operate these vehicles, this joint
rulemaking is based on the authority of both NHTSA and FMCSA. The legal
authorities for NHTSA and FMCSA are described in Section II, above.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposal or Final Rule Will Apply
The proposed FMVSS would apply to manufacturers of multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, with a GVWR of more than
11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds). The proposed FMCSR would apply to
motor carriers operating such vehicles in interstate commerce.
Vehicle Manufacturers
We believe there are very few manufacturers of heavy trucks in the
United States which can be considered small businesses. The heavy truck
industry is highly concentrated with large manufacturers, including
Daimler Trucks North America (Freightliner, Western Star), Navistar
International, Mack Trucks Inc., PACCAR (Peterbilt and Kenworth) and
Volvo Trucks North America, accounting for more than 99% of the annual
production. We believe that the remaining trucks (less than 1 percent)
are finished by final stage manufacturers. With production volume of
less than 1 percent annually, these remaining heavy truck manufacturers
are most likely small businesses.
NHTSA believes there are approximately 37 bus manufacturers in the
United States. Of these, 10 manufacturers are believed to be small
businesses: Advanced Bus Industries, Ebus Inc., Enova Systems, Gillig
Corporation, Krystal Koach Inc., Liberty Bus, Sunliner Coach Group LLC,
TMC Group Inc., Transportation Collaborative, Inc., Van-Con, Inc.
Motor Carriers
The motor carriers regulated by FMCSA operate in many different
industries. Most for-hire property carriers fall under North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) subsector 484, Truck
Transportation, and most for-hire passenger transportation carriers
fall under NAICS subsector 485, Transit and Ground Passenger
Transportation. The SBA size standard for NAICS subsector 484 is
currently $25.5 million in revenue per year, and the SBA size standard
for NAICS subsector 485 is currently $14 million in revenue per year.
Because the agencies do not have direct revenue figures for all
carriers, power units (PUs) serve as a proxy to determine the carrier
size that would qualify as a small business given the SBA's revenue
threshold. In order to produce this estimate, it is necessary to
determine the average revenue generated by a PU unit.
With regard to truck PUs, FMCSA determined in the Electronic On-
Board Recorders and Hours-of-Service Supporting Documents Rulemaking
RIA \71\ that a PU produces about $172,000 in revenue annually.
According to the SBA, motor carriers of property with annual revenue of
$25.5 million are considered small businesses.\72\ This equates to 148
power units (148.26 = 25,500,000/172,000). Thus, FMCSA considers motor
carriers of property with 148 PUs or fewer to be small businesses for
purposes of this analysis. FMCSA then looked at the number and
percentage of property carriers with recent activity that would fall
under that definition (of having 148 power units or fewer). The results
show that over 99 percent of all interstate property carriers with
recent activity have 148 PUs or fewer, which amounts to about 493,000
carriers.\73\ Therefore, the overwhelming majority of interstate
carriers of property would be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ FMCSA Regulatory Analysis, ``Hours of Service of Drivers;
Driver Rest and Sleep for Safe Operations,'' Final Rule (68 FR
22456, April 23, 2003).
\72\ U.S. Small Business Administration Table of Small Business
Size Standards matched to North American Industry Classification
(NAIC) System codes, effective July 22, 2013. See NAIC subsector
484, Truck Transportation.
\73\ FMCSA MCMIS Data, dated 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to passenger-carrying vehicles, FMCSA conducted a
[[Page 61967]]
preliminary analysis to estimate the average number of PUs for a small
entity earning $14 million annually,\74\ based on an assumption that
passenger carriers generate annual revenues of $150,000 per PU. This
estimate compares reasonably to the estimated average annual revenue
per power unit for the trucking industry ($172,000). A lower estimate
was used because passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
generally do not accumulate as many vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per
year as trucks, and it is therefore assumed that they would generate
less revenue per PU on average. The analysis concluded that passenger
carriers with 93 PUs or fewer ($14,000,000 divided by $150,000/PU =
93.3 PU) would be considered small entities. FMCSA then looked at the
number and percentage of passenger carriers registered with FMCSA that
have no more than 93 PUs. The results show that about 98% of active
passenger carriers have 93 PUs or less, which is about 10,000 carriers.
Therefore, the overwhelming majority of passenger carriers to which
this NPRM would apply would be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Motor carriers of passengers with an annual revenue of $14
million are considered small businesses. See id., subsector 485,
Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding bus companies, we believe that the companies most likely
to be affected would be those that operate motorcoaches, which tend to
be larger buses that are used for traveling longer distances. FMCSA
data indicates that there are approximately 4,168 authorized motorcoach
carriers, 813 of which own or lease only one motorcoach. The median
number of motorcoaches owned or leased by these companies is 3.
Accordingly, we estimate that most of the 4,168 motorcoach companies
are small entities with annual revenues of less than $14 million per
year.
The agencies request comments on the percentage of small carrier
business that might be affected by the proposed speed limiting device
requirements.
Description of the Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
Vehicle Manufacturers
The impact on manufacturers of heavy vehicles, whether they are
large or small businesses, would be minimal, because these vehicles are
already equipped with electronic engine controls that include the
capability to limit the speed of the vehicle.
Motor Carriers
FMCSA is proposing a complementary Federal motor carrier safety
regulation (FMCSR) requiring multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks,
and buses with a GVWR of more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds)
to be equipped with a speed limiting system meeting the requirements of
the proposed FMVSS applicable to the vehicle at the time of
manufacture. Motor carriers operating such vehicles in interstate
commerce would be required to maintain the speed limiting systems for
the service life of the vehicle.
The impact on small carriers could be significant from a
competitive perspective. Regarding small trucking companies, the
agencies predict that a speed limiting device might take away certain
competitive advantages that small carriers might have over large
trucking firms that already utilize speed limiting devices, but we have
very limited knowledge of knowing whether that impact is 10 percent of
their business, or more or less. We estimated that independent owner-
operators of combination trucks and single unit trucks would drive
33,675 million miles annually out of 112,249 million miles traveled by
these vehicles on rural and urban interstate highways. With the
estimated average wage of $0.32/mile, the total annual revenue would be
$10,776 million. As described in detail earlier in the PRIA, unlike
large trucking companies, small carriers with limited resources may not
be able to increase the number of drivers to overcome the delay in
delivery time. However, the competitive impacts are difficult to
estimate. For example, with 65 mph speed limiting devices, we estimated
that owner-operators would lose $50 million annually. Accordingly,
owner-operators would lose not more than 1% of their labor revenue.
However, we note that the estimates were made based on very limited
data. The agencies request comment on how large the economic impact
might be on owner-operators.
Regarding small motorcoach companies, we have even more limited
data to predict how affected small motorcoach companies would
compensate for the delay in delivery time or to quantify the effect on
those businesses. Like small trucking companies, small motorcoach
companies might need additional drivers to cover the same routes with a
speed limiting device if the speed limiting device reduces the distance
they can travel within their maximum hours of service. If those
companies were unable to hire additional drivers, they would likely
lose market share to larger companies that could afford additional
drivers.
The agencies believe that the proposed rule will affect small
businesses, as discussed above; and may have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small businesses. We request comment
on the agencies' assumptions regarding how this rulemaking would affect
small heavy vehicle operators, and we request comment on the type and
magnitude of that effect.
Duplication With Other Federal Rules
Although the heavy vehicle fuel efficiency program allows speed
limiting devices as a compliance option for vehicle manufacturers, it
does not require the devices.\75\ If a manufacturer chooses to use a
speed limiting device for compliance with that program, the speed
limiting device must meet certain requirements. These requirements are
not identical to the proposed FMVSS requirements. Specifically, the
fuel efficiency program requirements permit speed limiting devices to
have a soft top (i.e., a higher maximum speed than the set speed for a
limited amount of time), which would not be permitted under the
proposed FMVSS requirements. The fuel efficiency program also specifies
certain tamper-proofing requirements that would not be required by the
proposed FMVSS. Finally, the proposed FMVSS includes a requirement that
there be a means of reading the last two speed setting modifications
and the time and date of those modifications, which is not required for
speed limiting devices under the fuel efficiency program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See 40 CFR 1037.640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the proposed speed limiting device requirements are
different than those for speed limiting devices under the fuel
efficiency program, the requirements are not incompatible, and
manufacturers would be able to design speed limiting devices that
satisfy the requirements of the proposed FMVSS and the requirements
necessary for the devices to be used for compliance with the fuel
efficiency program. Manufacturers that choose to use speed limiting
systems as a means of compliance with the fuel efficiency program would
need to design a system that meets the requirements of both the program
and the proposed FMVSS, i.e., a speed limiting system with an initial
speed setting no greater than 65 mph that cannot be adjusted above the
speed used for compliance under the fuel efficiency program. Although
the
[[Page 61968]]
proposed FMVSS would not prohibit a ``soft top'' feature, in order to
meet the proposed requirements, the highest achievable speed using this
feature would have to be initially set to a speed no greater than 65
mph.
Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Rule Which
Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which
Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small
Entities
The agencies examined the expected benefits and costs of
alternative speed limiting requirements, including different maximum
speed settings, various tamper resistance requirements, and alternative
compliance test procedures. The agencies are also requesting comment on
the potential alternative of tying set speed to the speed limit of the
road using GPS, vision, or vehicle-to-infrastructure based
technologies.
When speed limiters are required to set speeds at a particular
speed, the requirement potentially imposes costs on CMV operators,
including the small operators. A higher proposed speed setting would
reduce the costs resulting from additional travel time. As explained in
detail in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act analysis, NHTSA and FMCSA
carefully explored the initial speed setting. The benefits estimate
showed that limiting vehicles to a speed of 65 mph would save
substantially more lives than the slightly higher speed setting of 68
mph. This speed setting would also harmonize U.S. requirements with
those of Ontario and Quebec.
The agencies requests comment on how the rule will impact small
businesses and alternatives that would accomplish the objectives of the
rulemaking while minimizing the impacts to small businesses.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA and FMCSA have examined today's NPRM pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no
additional consultation with States, local governments or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agencies
have concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed
rule would not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this
chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe
or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of
performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if
the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this
chapter.
49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that
preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law
\76\ addressing the same aspect of performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ The issue of whether there is any potential for preemption
of state tort law is addressed in the immediately following
paragraph discussing the operation of implied preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed FMVSS would preempt State laws or regulations
addressing heavy vehicle speed limiting devices. However, the proposed
FMVSS would not affect the States' ability to set maximum speed limits
for public roads and highways, even if the posted speed limits for
heavy vehicles are different than the set speed mandated when the
vehicles are manufactured and sold.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30103(e) Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules--even if not expressly preempted.
This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the
existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher
standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment
against the manufacturer--notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance
with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an
FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action
that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict
does exist --for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum
and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is
impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.
861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether
this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action.
The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, NHTSA has examined the nature (e.g., the language and
structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's proposal
and finds that this proposal, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a
minimum safety standard. Accordingly, NHTSA does not intend that this
proposal preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher
standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by
today's proposal. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State
tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard established in
this document. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied
preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
With a few exceptions not applicable here, FMCSA regulations do not
have preemptive effect. However, States that accept MCSAP grant funds--
currently all 50 States and the District of Columbia--must adopt
regulations ``compatible'' with many provisions of the FMCSRs. Pursuant
to MCSAP, participating States would be required to adopt and enforce,
within 3 years of the effective date of a final rule, State laws or
regulations applicable both to interstate and intrastate commerce that
have the same effect as proposed 49 CFR 393.85. In other words, States
would have to prohibit even motor carriers operating entirely in
intrastate commerce from re-setting their speed limiting devices to
speeds above the maximum specified set speed. Because State
participation in MCSAP is voluntary, the program does not have
federalism implications.
We solicit the comments of the States and other interested parties
on this assessment of issues relevant to E.O. 13132.
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
When promulgating a regulation, Executive Order 12988 specifically
[[Page 61969]]
requires that the agency must make every reasonable effort to ensure
that the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language
the preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA and FMCSA note as follows. The
preemptive effect of this proposal is discussed above in connection
with Executive Order 13132. NHTSA and FMCSA note further that there is
no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration
or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in
court.
E. Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation)
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609
provides, in part:
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may
differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address
similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the
regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign
counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of
American businesses to export and compete internationally. In
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory
cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective
as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements.
The regulatory approaches to speed limiting devices taken by
certain foreign governments are discussed in Section V above. The
proposed FMVSS adopts an approach that is similar to the widely used
UNECE regulation. Specifically, NHTSA is proposing a test procedure
substantially patterned after UNECE R89, which is described above.
NHTSA requests public comment on whether (a) the ``regulatory
approaches taken by foreign governments'' concerning the subject matter
of this rulemaking and (b) the above policy statement have any
implications for this rulemaking.
F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This rulemaking would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
G. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)
We analyzed this rulemaking under Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and
determined that it does not have a substantial effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
We analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. We
determined that this NPRM would not pose an environmental risk to
health or safety that might affect children disproportionately.
J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that Executive Order because while this is an
economically significant rulemaking it is not likely to have an adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. In fact, this
rulemaking would have a positive impact on the energy supply.
K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113) (15 U.S.C. 3701 note), ``all Federal agencies
and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical
standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities
determined by the agencies and departments.'' Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as
SAE International (SAE). The NTTAA directs agencies to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when they decide not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
NHTSA and FMCSA are not aware of any voluntary consensus standards
related to the proposed speed limiting device requirements that are
available at this time. However, we will consider any such standards as
they become available and seek comment on whether any such standards
exist.
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). In 2013 dollars, this
threshold is $141 million. This joint rulemaking is not expected to
result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, of more than $141 million annually, but the proposed
rules could result in the expenditure of that magnitude by the private
sector.
As noted previously, the agencies have prepared a detailed economic
assessment in the PRIA. That assessment analyzes the benefits and costs
of the proposed speed limiting device requirements for multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and school buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating of more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds).
The agencies' preliminary analysis indicates that although the proposed
rule would result in minimal costs to vehicle manufacturers, it could
result in expenditures by CMV operators of $1,534 million annually for
60 mph speed limiters, $514 million annually for 65 mph speed limiters,
and $206 million annually for 68 mph speed limiters assuming a 7
percent discount rate. This is because limiting vehicles to speeds will
increased travel time.
The PRIA also analyzes the expected benefits and costs of
alternative speed
[[Page 61970]]
limiting requirements, including different speed settings, various
tamper resistance requirements, and alternative compliance test
procedures. The proposed speed setting is the requirement that
potentially imposes costs on CMV operators. As explained in detail in
the PRIA and Section VIII of the preamble for this proposal, NHTSA and
FMCSA carefully explored alternative requirements for the initial speed
setting. The benefits estimate showed that limiting vehicles to a speed
of 65 mph would save substantially more lives than the higher
petitioned speed setting of 68 mph. Some additional safety benefits may
be realized with a lower speed setting of 60 mph. A 65 mph set speed
requirement would harmonize U.S. requirements with those of Ontario and
Quebec.
Additionally, as described in Section X.A.2, above, the agencies
estimate that the proposal would result in substantial fuel savings.
The fuel savings would offset the costs to CMV operators resulting from
increased travel time. Assuming that vehicle manufacturers design their
speed limiting devices so that the devices also meet the necessary
requirements to be used for compliance with the medium- and heavy-duty
vehicle fuel efficiency program (which the agencies expect they
will),\77\ the fuel savings resulting from this rulemaking would be
maximized with a set speed of 65 mph because the additional fuel
savings for set speeds below 65 mph were accounted for in the heavy
vehicle fuel efficiency program final rule.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ 40 CFR 1037.640.
\78\ 76 FR 57106 (Sep. 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, under the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle fuel
efficiency program, heavy vehicle drive cycles are evaluated at a
maximum speed of 65 mph,\79\ and a speed limiting device with a setting
at or above 65 mph will show no fuel savings.\80\ Thus, any fuel
savings associated with speed settings of 65 mph and above were not
estimated in the fuel efficiency program rulemaking. However, fuel
efficiency evaluation under the program would reflect the difference in
fuel consumption between the 65 mph baseline and a speed limiting
device with a set speed below 65 mph,\81\ and the heavy-duty vehicle
fuel efficiency final rule has already accounted for the fuel savings
resulting from this difference. Accordingly, no additional fuel savings
from a set speed below 65 mph could be attributed to this rulemaking
without double counting the benefits of the heavy-duty vehicle fuel
efficiency program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 76 FR 57182; Final Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, Regulatory Impact Analysis, Section
4.2.4, EPA-420-R-11-901 (August 2011), available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy.
\80\ 75 FR at 57155.
\81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparing the costs and fuel savings of the various speed setting
alternatives, which are discussed in detail in the PRIA, the agencies
estimate that limiting heavy vehicles to 68 mph would result in $209
million in costs (assuming a 7 percent discount rate) from increased
travel times, as compared to $523 million in costs associated with
limiting vehicles to 65 mph. However, the cost difference would be
offset by additional fuel savings that would be realized with a 65 mph
speed setting versus a 68 mph speed.
The agencies estimate that limiting heavy vehicles to 60 mph would
result in $1,561 million in costs (assuming a 7 percent discount rate)
from increased travel times, i.e., an increase in costs of $1,038
million compared to the costs of a 65 mph speed setting. However, as
explained above, assuming that vehicle manufacturers design their speed
limiting devices so that the devices also meet the necessary
requirements to be used for compliance with the heavy-duty vehicle fuel
efficiency program, no additional fuel savings from limiting vehicles
to 60 mph versus 65 mph could be attributed to this rulemaking without
double counting the benefits already accounted for in the medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency program rulemaking.
M. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA and FMCSA have analyzed this NPRM for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and determined that this action may have an impact on the quality
of the human environment. Concurrently with this NPRM, the agencies are
releasing a Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA), pursuant to NEPA
and implementing regulations and procedures issued by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), NHTSA (49 CFR
part 520), and FMCSA (Order 5610.1, issued March 1, 2004 [69 FR 9680]).
The agencies prepared the Draft EA to analyze the potential
environmental impacts of the proposal to require installation of speed
limiters in new heavy vehicles and maintenance of a maximum speed
setting by motor carriers operating affected vehicles. The Draft
Environmental Assessment, which informs this NPRM, is available for
inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov Web site listed under
ADDRESSES. The Draft EA analyzes the possible environmental impacts of
heavy vehicles driving at slower speeds due to the use of vehicle speed
limiters set at three alternative maximum speeds: 60 mph, 65 mph, and
68 mph. The Draft EA also analyzes and compares these action
alternatives to a ``No Action Alternative'' based on current driving
behavior. The resource areas that may be affected by the proposed
action include air quality, public health and safety, and solid waste
and hazardous materials. In addition, the Draft EA addresses the
agencies' analysis required by Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act.
NHTSA and FMCSA have reviewed the information presented in the
Draft EA and conclude that the proposed action would have an overall
positive impact on the quality of the human environment. In particular,
the agencies anticipate reductions in most harmful air pollutant
emissions, benefits from reduced fuel use (including reductions in
carbon dioxide emissions), and reductions in releases of solid waste
and hazardous materials corresponding to reductions in crash severity.
The Draft EA shows anticipated increases in some harmful air pollutant
emissions. The degree of impacts for each alternative correlate with
the degree of speed reduction anticipated under that alternative.
Overall, these impacts are not anticipated to be great in intensity,
and they will occur so far into the future (as a result of slow fleet
turnover where new vehicles subject to the requirements make up only a
small percentage of on-road vehicles in the short term) that they are
subject to considerable uncertainty. Still, for each action
alternative, the environmental impacts of the proposed action are
expected to be beneficial when taken together and are not expected to
rise to a level of significance that necessitates the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement.
The Draft EA is open for public comment. The agencies will consider
all comments received in preparing and reviewing the Final EA. At this
time, based on the information in the Draft EA and assuming no
additional information or changed circumstances, the agencies expect to
issue a Finding of No Significant Impact. A FONSI, if appropriate,
would be issued concurrent with the Final EA. However, any such finding
will not be made before careful review of all comments.
N. Environmental Justice
We evaluated the environmental effects of this NPRM in accordance
with E.O. 12898 and determined that there are neither environmental
justice issues
[[Page 61971]]
associated with its provisions nor any collective environmental impact
resulting from its promulgation. Environmental justice issues would be
raised if there were a ``disproportionate''' and ``high and adverse
impact'' on minority or low-income populations. None of the
alternatives analyzed in FMCSA or NHTSA's deliberations would result in
high and adverse environmental justice impacts.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This rulemaking would
not establish any new information collection requirements.
P. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.
Q. Privacy Impact Assessment
Section 522 of Title I of Division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447,
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the agencies to
conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a proposed regulation that
will affect the privacy of individuals. This joint rulemaking would not
require the collection of any personally identifiable information or
otherwise affect the privacy of individuals, and thus no PIA is
required.
R. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the NHTSA and FMCSA RINs contained in the heading at the beginning
of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Proposed Regulatory Text
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 393
Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference, Motor carriers,
Motor vehicle equipment, Motor vehicle safety.
49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA and NHTSA propose to amend
49 CFR parts 393 and 571, respectively, as follows:
PART 393--PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 393 of title 49 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 1041(b) of
Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); sec. 5524 of Pub. L.
114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.
0
2. Amend Sec. 393.5 to include, in alphabetical order, a definition of
``speed limiting device.''
Sec. 393.5 Definitions.
Speed limiting device means a device or function in a vehicle
capable of limiting the maximum motive power-controlled speed at which
the vehicle may operate.
0
3 Add Sec. 393.85 to read as follows:
Sec. 393.85 Speed Limiting Devices.
Each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus and school bus with
a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000
pounds) manufactured on or after September 1, 2020, shall be equipped
with a device that limits its speed to [a speed to be specified in a
final rule] as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
140 (49 CFR 571.140).
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
4. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
5. Add Sec. 571.140 to subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 571.140 Standard No. 140; Speed limiting devices.
S1. Scope. This standard specifies performance requirements for
vehicle speed limiting functionality used to limit the road speed of
motor vehicles.
S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the number
of deaths and injuries that occur in crashes when heavy vehicles are
traveling at high speeds.
S3. Application. This standard applies to multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, buses, and school buses with a gross vehicle weight
rating of more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds).
S4. Definitions.
Maximum Speed (Vmax) means the maximum speed reached by
the vehicle.
Set speed (Vset) means the intended mean vehicle speed
when operating in a stabilized condition.
Speed determination parameters are the vehicle parameters used by
the speed limiting device to calculate the vehicle's speed including
tire size and gear ratios.
Speed limiting device means a device or function in a vehicle
capable of limiting the maximum motive power-controlled speed at which
the vehicle may operate.
Stabilized speed (Vstab) means the average vehicle speed
as limited by the vehicle speed limiting device calculated according to
S7.4.
S5. Requirements. Each vehicle manufactured on or after September
1, 2020, shall be equipped with a speed limiting device and meet the
requirements specified in this section.
S5.1 Equipment Requirements. The speed limiting device shall meet
the requirements in paragraphs S5.1.1 through S5.1.2.
S5.1.1 Readable Information. The information specified in
paragraphs S5.1.1.1 through S5.1.1.3 shall be readable by means of a
connector meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 86.010-18.
S5.1.1.1 Current Settings. The current set speed (Vset)
and current speed determination parameters.
S5.1.1.2 Previous Vset.
(a) If the Vset has changed once, the previous
Vset value and the time and date of the Vset
change.
(b) If the Vset has changed two or more times, the two
most recent Vset values set prior to the current
Vset value and the time and date of the two most recent
Vset changes.
S5.1.1.3 Previous Speed Determination Parameter Values. For
[[Page 61972]]
each speed determination parameter that has changed, the following
information:
(a) If the speed determination parameter has changed once, the
previous value for each changed parameter and the time and date of the
parameter change.
(b) If the speed determination parameter has changed two or more
times, the two most recent values for the parameter set prior to the
current parameter value and the time and date of the two most recent
changes to the parameter.
S5.1.2 Modification. A means shall be provided to modify the speed
determination parameters.
S5.2 Performance Requirements. When tested according to S6 and S7,
the vehicle shall perform as follows:
S5.2.1 The set speed (Vset) shall be no greater than [a
speed to be specified in a final rule].
S5.2.2 After the vehicle speed has reached 95% of Vset
for the first time, Vmax shall not exceed Vstab
by more than 5%.
S5.2.3 Ten seconds after the vehicle first reaches 95% of
Vset and beyond:
S5.2.3.1 The vehicle speed shall not vary by more than 2% of Vstab, and
S5.2.3.2 Vstab as calculated according to S7.4 shall be
no greater than Vset.
S5.3 The speed limiting device may allow normal acceleration
control for the purpose of gear changing.
S6. Test Conditions.
S6.1 Ambient conditions.
S6.1.1 The ambient temperature is between 7[deg] C
(45[emsp14][deg]F) and 40[deg] C (105[emsp14][deg]F).
S6.1.2 The wind speed is less than 5m/s (11 mph).
S6.2 Road test surface.
S6.2.1 The test track is suitable to enable a stabilization speed
to be maintained and the test surface is solid-paved, uniform, without
irregularities, undulations, dips or large cracks. Gradients do not
exceed 2% and do not vary by more than 1% excluding camber effects.
S6.2.2 The test surface is free from standing water, snow, or ice.
S6.3 Vehicle conditions
S6.3.1 Tires. The vehicle is tested with the tires installed on the
vehicle at the time of initial vehicle sale. The tires are inflated to
the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure(s).
S6.3.2 The vehicle is tested in an unloaded condition with a single
operator and necessary test equipment.
S6.3.3 A truck tractor is tested without a trailer.
S6.4 Test equipment
S6.4.1 The speed measurement is independent of the vehicle
speedometer and is accurate within plus or minus 1%.
S7. Running the test
S7.1 The vehicle, running at a speed which is 10 km/h below the set
speed, is accelerated at a smooth and progressive rate using a full
positive action on the accelerator control.
S7.2 This action is maintained at least 30 seconds after the
vehicle speed has reached 95% of Vset.
S7.3 The instantaneous vehicle speed is recorded at a frequency of
at least 100 Hz during the testing in order to establish the speed
versus time plot as shown in Figure 1.
S7.4 Vstab is the average vehicle speed starting ten
seconds after the vehicle first reaches a speed equal to 95% of
Vset measured over a duration of at least 20 seconds.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07SE16.030
Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: Dated:
August 25, 2016.
T. F. Scott Darling, III,
Administrator,
Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 on: Dated:
August 25, 2016.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-20934 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
