[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 140 (Thursday, July 24, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34822-34826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13928]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 393
[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0083; Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0004]
RIN 2126-AB63
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0087]
RIN 2127-AK92
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation;
Speed Limiting Devices; Withdrawal
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); advance notice of
supplemental proposed rulemaking (ANSPRM); withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA and NHTSA withdraw the September 7, 2016 joint NPRM that
proposed to require that heavy vehicles (those with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of more than 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds)) be
equipped with a speed limiting device that is maintained at a set
speed. FMCSA also withdraws its May 4, 2022 ANSPRM, which announced
FMCSA's intent to proceed with a speed limiter rulemaking. The ANSPRM
stated that FMCSA was preparing a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) to propose that motor carriers operating commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce with a gross vehicle
weight or GVWR of at least 11,794 kilograms (26,001 pounds), whichever
is greater, and that are equipped with an engine control unit (ECU)
capable of governing the maximum speed, be required to limit the CMV to
a speed to be determined by the rulemaking and to maintain that ECU
setting for the service life of the vehicle. In light of significant
policy and safety concerns and continued data gaps that create
considerable uncertainty about the estimated costs, benefits, and other
impacts of the proposed rule, FMCSA and NHTSA have decided to withdraw
the proposal.
DATES: FMCSA and NHTSA withdraw the NPRM published September 7, 2016,
at 81 FR 61942 as of July 24, 2025. FMCSA withdraws the ANSPRM
published May 4, 2022, at 87 FR 26317 as of July 24, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
FMCSA: Mr. David Sutula, Chief, Vehicle and Roadside Operations
Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
(202) 366-2551; [email protected].
NHTSA: Mr. Markus Price, Office of Vehicle Rulemaking; (202) 366-
1810; [email protected]; or Mr. David Jasinski, Office of Chief
Counsel; [email protected]. Mailing address of these officials:
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 7, 2016, in response to separate petitions \1\ from
the American
[[Page 34823]]
Trucking Associations (ATA) and Schneider National, Inc. et al.
(including 9 other ATA-member motor carriers), NHTSA and FMCSA issued a
joint NPRM proposing to require heavy vehicles with a GVWR of more than
11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) be equipped with a speed limiting
device initially set to a speed no greater than a speed to be specified
in a final rule. NHTSA and FMCSA also proposed to require motor
carriers operating such vehicles in interstate commerce to maintain the
speed limiting devices for the service life of the vehicle (81 FR
61942). NHTSA and FMCSA requested comment on speeds ranging from 60 to
68 miles per hour (mph). The estimated economic impacts of the joint
NPRM varied widely based upon the set speed, with annual costs ranging
from $209 million to $1.561 billion. The Agencies also estimated that,
at a 65 mph set speed, the proposed rule would save between 63 and 214
lives annually, monetized at between $716 million and $2.4 billion
using both the value of statistical life in 2013 as well as economic
costs and would also result in $848 million in fuel and emissions
savings based on then-current price estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These petitions were granted. By granting a petition, NHTSA
and FMCSA agreed to commence a rulemaking action, which was
accomplished by publishing the NPRM. The ATA petition can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2007-26851-0005 and
the Schneider National, Inc. et al. petition can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/NHTSA-2007-26851-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM was based on a review of the available data, which
suggested that limiting the speed of these heavy vehicles would reduce
the severity of crashes involving these vehicles. However, NHTSA and
FMCSA were not able to estimate the effects of speed reduction on the
number of crashes occurring (i.e., collision avoidance), and the
proposal did not include estimated costs or benefits related to crash
reductions or increases. The NPRM sought comment on the analysis of the
costs and benefits of amending the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)
to require speed limiting devices and their usage.
Comments were solicited on the NPRM for a total of 90 days, ending
December 7, 2016. A total of 7,225 comments were received by that date
\2\ from individuals, motor carriers, industry organizations, and
advocacy groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FMCSA received a total of 4,633 comments, and NHTSA received
a total of 2,592 comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview of Comments to the NPRM
Individual drivers supporting the NPRM discussed a variety of
topics. Many drivers of light vehicles (i.e., vehicles with a GVWR of
less than 3,856 kilograms (8,500 pounds)) supported the NPRM, stating
that it would contribute to overall driving safety. They gave numerous
examples of perceived dangerous driving by heavy vehicles based upon
personal experiences and asserted that slowing down heavy vehicles
would improve safety. Many individuals who responded in favor of the
NPRM indicated that the rule should be expanded to apply to all heavy
vehicles that already have speed governing equipment installed by the
manufacturer.
Individual drivers opposed to the NPRM raised concerns about a host
of potential impacts. The most common concern was about the potential
speed differential between speed-limited heavy vehicles and light
vehicles. Commenters indicated the relative differences in vehicle
speeds could lead to more interactions between heavy vehicles heavy and
light vehicles and could lead to increased or risky driving behavior by
light vehicles trying to pass the slower heavy vehicles. Many
commenters stated that the proposed requirements would slow traffic in
general, particularly if two speed-limited heavy vehicles tried to pass
one another. Some commenters stated that speed limiters would lead to
increased speeding by heavy vehicles on surface streets with lower
speed limits due to drivers trying to make up time. Others stated that
the proposed rule would amount to government over-regulation, and
result in increased costs for the trucking industry and slower overall
delivery times. Commenters suggested increasing training for both heavy
truck and light vehicle drivers as well as the alternative of
increasing enforcement of existing speed limit laws.
The comments received from industry and advocacy groups were also
mixed. Those in favor of the proposed rule, like Coach USA, supported a
68 mph speed limit, indicating that, as of December 2016, they have
been using speed limiters in their fleet of buses for about 10 years,
and that their speed limiters are set to 68 mph. The Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) supported the NPRM, stating that
lowering speeds would also lower the kinetic energy of crashes (thus
reducing injuries), and that speed differentials already exist between
trucks and cars on the highway. IIHS stated that the rule should
require speed limiters to be added to existing heavy vehicles. Some
opposing the rule, like the Michigan Department of Transportation
(MDOT), stated that it would set a national speed limit for trucks,
preempting State laws. MDOT also stated that the increased speed
differential between heavy vehicles and light vehicles would possibly
lead to more crashes. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA) stated that speed limiters would increase driver
fatigue and ``[t]he agencies have made no attempt to examine the
externalities of a speed limiter mandate other than to evaluate the
societal costs incurred at the event of a heavy vehicle crash, whereas
congestion costs are largely omitted.''
In the NPRM, three different speed limits were analyzed for heavy
vehicles: 60, 65, and 68 mph. Analysis was conducted on each speed
limit with the predicted improvement to safety given for each speed.
The NPRM requested that commenters indicate which speed would be most
appropriate. Relatively few of the commenters responded to this
request. Among those that did, the preferred speed was nearly evenly
split among the three proposed speeds.
FMCSA ANSPRM
On May 4, 2022, FMCSA published in the Federal Register (87 FR
26317) an ANSPRM announcing the Agency's intent to proceed with a speed
limiter rulemaking to follow up on the joint 2016 NPRM. The ANSPRM
explained that FMCSA intended to issue an SNPRM that, if adopted, would
impose speed limitations on certain CMVs subject to the FMCSRs.
Specifically, the Agency indicated that it would propose to require
motor carriers to limit speeds for certain CMVs operated in interstate
commerce that were already equipped with an electronic engine control
unit (ECU) capable of setting speed limits. The maximum speed of
affected CMVs was to be determined by the rulemaking, and motor
carriers would have been required to maintain that maximum limit in the
ECU for the service life of the vehicle.
FMCSA solicited comments concerning the ANSPRM for a total of 75
days, ending July 18, 2022. A total of 15,638 comments were received by
that date. The comments were from individuals, motor carriers, industry
associations, safety advocacy groups, technology developers,
governmental entities, and research organizations. The issues raised by
commenters to the ANSPRM, both supporting and opposing, were largely
identical to those raised by commenters to the 2016 NPRM. Public
comments were varied in both support and opposition to the proposals
discussed in the ANSPRM. In many cases, a given commenter argued both
in support of certain provisions of a proposed rule and in opposition
to other provisions. Commenters included CMV drivers, trucking and bus
companies, industry associations, safety
[[Page 34824]]
organizations, technology developers, a research institute, and a non-
law enforcement governmental entity. The comments and FMCSA responses
are organized topically and summarized below.
Support for Moving Forward With the Rulemaking
Overall, approximately 300 comments provided some type of support
for continued development of the proposals described in the ANSPRM.
Commenters supporting the notice generally identified increased highway
safety and positive impacts on truck drivers, the trucking industry,
the economy, and the environment as reasons to support the ECU carrier-
based approach. Commenters that included a government entity, safety
organizations, and industry organizations, such as The Trucking
Alliance, National Safety Council, Safe Operating Speed Alliance, C.R.
England, Inc, National Transportation Safety Board, Truckload Carriers
Association (TCA), The Law Firm for Truck Safety LLP, Institute for
Safer Trucking, and Road Safe America supported the implementation of
required speed limiter technology throughout the trucking industry in
order to increase highway safety overall for all drivers and vehicles.
Certain commenters, including Road Safe America, TCA, The Law Firm for
Truck Safety LLP, and Advocates, supported using speed limiting devices
and stated that the technology has been around for some time. A few
even suggested maximum speeds to be considered in a proposed
rulemaking. The Law Firm for Truck Safety LLP supported the ANSPRM and
cited the positive impacts the proposal would have on truck drivers
based on interviews of truck drivers conducted in the summer of 2022.
Certain individuals and safety organizations believed that the
proposals would improve fuel efficiency and provide positive impacts on
the environment. These commenters included The Law Firm for Truck
Safety, LLP, and IIHS, which also supported the ANSPRM from a carrier-
based approach.
Opposition to Moving Forward With the Rulemaking
More than 15,000 comments included statements opposing the
rulemaking. Some questioned FMCSA's authority and whether the proposal
would reduce highway safety by creating speed differentials and
increasing traffic congestion. The opponents also cited potential
impacts on the industry, driver pay, the economy, and the environment.
Commenters questioning FMCSA's statutory authority included the
Texas Public Policy Foundation and several industry organizations,
including OOIDA; AWM Associates, LLC; and SSTL Inc. Numerous
individuals, companies and industry organizations such as OOIDA, United
Parcel Service, and Real Women in Trucking, cited concerns that there
would be a reduction in highway safety due to speed differentials and
traffic congestion that would potentially reduce drivers' ability to
merge or pass and would thereby increase traffic, which could lead to
fatigue, aggressive driving, and other less safe driving situations.
Several commenters, including OOIDA, indicated that limiting a
truck's speed would have adverse impacts on driver's' incomes, because
reducing travel speeds would reduce the number of miles traveled as
well as the number of pick-ups and deliveries. Other commenter issues
included higher fuel costs, impacts to driver well-being and ease of
parking due to additional hours a driver might have to spend driving to
complete a job. Those commenters included OOIDA, the American Bus
Association, and the Kansas Livestock Association. There were similar
concerns regarding impacts to the trucking industry, economy, and
environment. Numerous agricultural organizations and many individuals
expressed concerns related to supply chain issues that they stated
would place small business owners at a disadvantage in meeting
deadlines. Many individual commenters also expressed concern that the
proposal would cause drivers to leave the industry, which many noted is
already experiencing a driver shortage.
A few commenters also expressed opposition to a carrier-based
approach, stating that most vehicle crashes are caused by passenger
cars, and some even suggested training drivers in all license classes
to be aware of CMVs.
Rationale for Withdrawal
NHTSA and FMCSA have determined that the 2016 NPRM lacks a
sufficiently clear and compelling safety justification for its
implementation and raises significant concerns regarding federalism.
NHTSA and FMCSA's research and analyses contained significant data gaps
regarding potential safety benefits and economic impacts, and
information obtained through the public comment process did not provide
the information necessary to proceed to a final rule. NHTSA and FMCSA
therefore withdraw the September 7, 2016 NPRM. For the same reasons,
FMCSA also withdraws the May 4, 2022 ANSPRM.
The benefits estimation in the NPRM was based on the value of
equivalent lives saved, plus property damage reduction, plus fuel
savings. This analysis had limitations, which together create
significant uncertainty regarding its conclusions.
First, considering advancements made in crash avoidance
technologies in recent years, NHTSA and FMCSA believe there is a large
degree of uncertainty about the baseline number of crashes (i.e., the
crashes projected to occur without the rulemaking in the future), which
calls into question the magnitude of the estimated safety benefits of
the rulemaking. In particular, rear-end crashes involving heavy
vehicles (where the truck is the striking vehicle) could be reduced by
crash avoidance technologies designed to mitigate or prevent such
crashes, such as automatic emergency braking (AEB) and forward
collision warning (FCW).\3\ An increasing percentage of vehicles,
including heavy vehicles, will be equipped with crash avoidance
technologies in the future as more fleet owners purchase trucks with
those technologies.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These technologies are being installed on both passenger
vehicles and heavy vehicles and will thus potentially alter impact
speeds in complex ways as all vehicles achieve more efficient
braking capability than reflected in the current on-road fleet.
\4\ In 2020, the market share rate of AEB was estimated to be
less than 50 percent of new class 8 truck sales. (See the report,
``Research and Testing to Accelerate Voluntary Adoption of Automatic
Emergency Braking (AEB) on Commercial Vehicles,'' https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49335.) Also see the discussion of
projected AEB penetration rates in chapter 4 of the Preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the joint NHTSA and FMCSA NPRM on
heavy vehicle AEB (2127-AM36, 2126-AC49) at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2023-0023-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 16, 2015, NHTSA granted a petition for rulemaking to
establish a safety standard to require automatic forward collision
avoidance and mitigation systems on certain heavy vehicles (80 FR
62487). On July 6, 2023, NHTSA and FMCSA published a joint NPRM
proposing to adopt a new FMVSS to require AEB systems on heavy
vehicles, i.e., vehicles with a GWVR greater than 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 pounds), and new FMCSRs to require mandated AEB and electronic
stability control (ESC) systems to be active during vehicle operation
(88 FR 43174). An AEB system uses multiple sensor technologies and sub-
systems that work together to sense when the vehicle is in a crash
imminent situation and applies the vehicle brakes automatically if the
driver has not done
[[Page 34825]]
so or applies more braking force automatically to supplement the
driver's applied braking. The NPRM followed NHTSA's 2015 grant of the
petition mentioned above. The NPRM also responded to a mandate under
section 23010 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
(Pub. L. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429, 766, Nov. 15, 2021). IIJA section 23010
directs the Department to prescribe an FMVSS that requires heavy CMVs
with an FMVSS-required electronic stability control (ESC) system to be
equipped with an AEB system. IIJA section 23010 further directs the
Department to prescribe an FMCSR that requires such heavy CMVs to use
their FMVSS-mandated AEB systems at any time the CMV is operating. The
NPRM proposed FMCSRs requiring the ESC and AEB systems to be active
during vehicle operation.
NHTSA and FMCSA believe a portion of the crashes that they assumed
would be mitigated by speed limiters may also be mitigated by AEB and
FCW systems. ATA commented that safety technologies such as AEB and
adaptive cruise control have evolved since the publication of the 2016
NPRM and may mitigate some of the concerns about speed differentials,
productivity, and safety. Both ATA and Road Safe America advocated for
establishing a higher speed limiter setting of 70 mph for vehicles
equipped with and using AEB and AEC. However, OOIDA \5\ and an
anonymous commenter expressed concern that AEB triggers false or
unexpected activation of the brake system and causes dangerous driving
situations. Because advanced crash avoidance technologies that could
prevent or mitigate crashes affected by the 2016 NPRM were not
considered, the baseline in the analysis may not accurately project
potential safety benefits and costs of speed limiting devices.
Regulation in this area should not proceed until a more certain
assessment of the effect of advanced crash avoidance technologies can
be made, which would inform the analysis of the potential impacts of
speed limiter technologies. The voluntary development and adoption of
new crash-avoidance technologies, such as AEB, demonstrates that
markets are progressing toward goals similar to those a speed limiter
regulation would be expected to achieve. All recently manufactured
heavy vehicles come equipped with the speed limiting devices (in the
form of ECUs); the withdrawal of the NPRM and ANSPRM has no impact on
the ability of operators to use those devices to manage speeds. Various
operators have set maximum speeds voluntarily, in part to realize many
of the fuel-saving and assumed safety benefits that users attribute to
the devices. The withdrawal of the proposal will have no effect on the
availability of speed limiting devices and the ability of operators to
limit the speed of their own vehicles if they so choose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ OOIDA's March 2021 letter to Secretary Buttigieg may be
found in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the NPRM did not include an estimate of crashes avoided or
caused. It remains unclear whether implementing the NPRM would lead to
a net increase in crashes, including those involving motorists striking
the rear of CMVs at a device-limited speed, which NHTSA and FMCSA have
been unable to quantify. Research varies on the topic of speed
differentials and their impact on crash rates.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ VTRC, The Safety Impacts of Differential Speed Limits on
Rural Interstate Highways, FHWA-HRT-04-156, Sept. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments did not include any clear research not already cited
in the 2016 NPRM that could be used to establish the safety impacts
associated with crash avoidance characteristics of the proposed rule.
NHTSA and FMCSA received some comments that referenced international
studies that reported specific changes in crash rates during the time
period for which speed limiting devices were implemented
internationally; however, it is not clear that these rate changes can
be attributed to speed limiting devices, or that the same crash rate
changes could be anticipated for traffic conditions in the United
States.\7\ One concern about international studies is that drivers
behave differently in different countries and have different risk-
tolerances. In addition, trucks in other countries may differ from
those in the U.S. in terms of size and shape. Other comments referenced
another study that was unable to provide specific quantitative risks
associated with the installation of speed limiting devices and the
risks associated with different car and truck travel speeds.\8\ NHTSA
and FMCSA do not have reliable estimates of crash avoidance benefits
based on trucks driving at lower speeds or of a possible reduction in
safety resulting from the risks associated with speed differentials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Comment from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2016-0087-2216.
\8\ Gates, Timothy, et al. Safety and Operational Impacts of
Differential Speed Limits on Two-Lane Rural Highways in Montana
[Final Report]. July 2016. Available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/31482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
(58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), directs agencies to tailor their
regulations to impose the least burden on society, including
individuals and businesses of differing sizes, consistent with
obtaining the regulatory objectives, considering, among other things,
and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations. The
crash avoidance technologies under development may achieve the safety
goals of this rulemaking better than a speed limiter requirement. The
potential effects of the rulemaking on trucking commerce are difficult
to predict because they would affect a wide range of economic
activities, a limited subset of which were explored in the Preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) and NPRM. As discussed in the PRIA
and NPRM, NHTSA and FMCSA are unable to predict the secondary impacts
of a speed limiter requirement, such as the rebound effect (as the fuel
used per mile would likely decline) and driver wage rates (which have
historically been based on miles, rather than hours, driven), which
could have significant impacts on the trucking industry.\9\ Moreover,
NHTSA and FMCSA estimated that the rulemaking could put small owner-
operators at a disadvantage in some circumstances, resulting in a
reduction in profits (81 FR 61942, 61694).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The rebound effect is defined as ``secondary impacts that
are difficult to quantify because the response of manufacturers and
drivers is difficult to predict.'' See Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis FMVSS No. 140
Speed Limiting Devices. NHTSA Office of Regulatory Analysis and
Evaluation, p. 167. This document can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2016-0087-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the
President's ``Department of Government Efficiency'' Deregulatory
Initiative (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025)), directs agencies to rescind
regulations that are unlawful or undermine the National interest. It
establishes classes of regulations that should be reviewed for
rescission or modification, including ``(iii) regulations that are
based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying
statutory authority or prohibition.'' In light of comments from the
Texas Public Policy Foundation and OOIDA stating that the 2016 NPRM
would violate section 205(d) of the National Highway System Designation
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-59, 109 Stat. 568, 577, Nov. 28, 1995, which
repealed the national maximum speed limit
[[Page 34826]]
enacted in 1975 that was formerly codified at 23 U.S.C. 154), the
proposed rule could be viewed as inconsistent with the prohibition on
the adoption of traffic safety regulations in 49 U.S.C. 31147(a).
Therefore, NHTSA and FMCSA believe it is appropriate to withdraw this
rulemaking, consistent with the intent of E.O. 14219.
Fifth, NHTSA and FMCSA are concerned about the uncertainty
regarding industry response to daily driving distance limitations that
could result from the rulemaking. Because the speeds under
consideration were all below the legal speed limit applicable to these
vehicles on many of the Nation's highways, the rulemaking would reduce
the maximum potential distance a driver could theoretically travel in a
single day within the maximum allowed hours of service if the driver is
currently driving the maximum number of hours allowed by law. NHTSA and
FMCSA assumed that industry would respond through a combination of
increased driver efficiency and team driving when such response is
feasible and practicable, but other responses, such as adding
additional trucks to move the same amount of goods, might also occur.
NHTSA and FMCSA did not consider the possibility that the rulemaking
could result in an increase in the overall number of trucks required to
be on the roads, which would lead to increased costs for those trucks,
reduced overall fuel savings and environmental benefits, and possible
safety disbenefits from greater exposure of drivers of light vehicles
to vehicles with substantial speed differentials.
Sixth, NHTSA and FMCSA attempted to estimate the aggregate economic
value lost due to the depreciation of goods as a result of slower
travel speeds but have been unable to consider how the cost would be
distributed across industry sectors, particularly to deliveries that
are time-sensitive, such as those in the agricultural industry. While
commenters suggested that the rule would affect certain industry
sectors disproportionately, they did not provide data to enable NHTSA
and FMCSA to quantify this effect.
Seventh, while NHTSA and FMCSA considered the costs to truck
operators resulting from longer travel times, they have been unable to
account for the potential delays and other costs to other road users,
caused by factors such as decreased speed of other vehicles traveling
resulting from an inability to pass slower moving heavy vehicles.
Although the potential for delays to other road uses was an issue
raised by many commenters, they did not provide data enabling NHTSA and
FMCSA to quantify the magnitude of this effect.
Finally, if implemented, the proposal could have, over time,
displaced State authority to set speed limits for heavy vehicles, given
that the speeds under consideration in the 2016 NPRM (60 mph, 65 mph,
and 68 mph) are below the maximum posted daytime speed limits on many
roads, including rural Interstates in over half of the States. Because
many States have determined that it is safe for heavy vehicles to
operate above 68 mph on certain roads, the rulemaking would, in effect,
undercut the ability of those States to set the speed limits they have
deemed appropriate on their roadways.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the NPRM published in
the Federal Register on September 7, 2016 at 81 FR 61942, is hereby
withdrawn. FMCSA also withdraws the May 4, 2022 ANSPRM. This action is
considered a deregulatory action under E.O. 14192, Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), as it
withdraws an NPRM that was issued before January 20, 2025 that was
determined to be ``significant'' under E.O. 12866.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 concerning FMCSA,
and 49 CFR 1.95, 501.4, and 501.5 concerning NHTSA.
For FMCSA:
Sue Lawless,
Assistant Administrator.
For NHTSA:
Peter Simshauser,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2025-13928 Filed 7-23-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P