[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61941-61972]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20934]

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

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

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Facsimile:
(202) 366-7002. For legal issues, you may contact Mr. David Jasinski,
Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. Facsimile:
(202) 366-8842. For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Charles Medalen,
Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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

    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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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