[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