Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Engine Control Module Speed Limiter Device |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Nathaniel Beuse
January 3, 2011
[Federal Register: January 3, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 1)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78-80]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03ja11-21]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-26851]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Engine Control Module
Speed Limiter Device
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Grant of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice grants two separate but similar petitions for
rulemaking, one submitted by the American Trucking Associations and the
other submitted by Road Safe America and a group of nine motor carriers
(Schneider National, Inc., C.R. England, Inc., H.O. Wolding, Inc., ATS
Intermodal, LLC, DART Transit Company, J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., U.S.
Xpress, Inc., Covenant Transport, Inc., and Jet Express, Inc.) to
establish a safety standard to require devices that would limit the
speed of certain heavy trucks. Based on information received in
response to a request for comments,\1\ the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration believes that these petitions merit further
consideration through the agency's rulemaking process. In addition,
because of the overlapping issues addressed in these two petitions, the
agency will address them together in a single rulemaking activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 72 FR 3904; January 26, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plans to
initiate the rulemaking process on this issue with a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in 2012. The determination of whether to issue a rule will
be made in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with
statutory criteria.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202-366-0098;
FAX: 202-366-7002). For legal issues, you may call Mr. Steve Wood,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Vehicle Rulemaking and Harmonization,
(Phone: 202-366-2992; FAX: 202-366-3820). You may send mail to this
official at: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 20, 2006, the American Trucking Associations (ATA)
submitted a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) requesting that the agency initiate rulemaking
to amend the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to require vehicle
manufacturers to install a device to limit the speed of trucks with a
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 26,000 pounds to no
more than 68 miles per hour (mph). The ATA claimed that reducing speed-
related crashes involving trucks is critical to the safety mission of
NHTSA, and that these new requirements are needed to reduce the number
and severity of crashes involving large trucks.
On September 8, 2006, Road Safe America and a group of nine motor
carriers also petitioned the agency to require that manufacturers
install a speed limiting device in vehicles with a GVWR over 26,000
pounds and that the devices be set at not more than 68 mph. They also
requested that the requirements apply to all trucks manufactured after
1990.
Summary of the Petitions
A detailed discussion of the two petitions can be found in the
request for comments notice. Items specific to NHTSA include the
following requests from ATA:
1. All newly manufactured trucks with a GVWR greater than 26,000
pounds shall be equipped with an electronic control module (ECM) that
is capable of limiting the maximum speed of the vehicle.
2. The ECM shall be set at no more than 68 mph by the manufacturer.
3. The ECM should be tamper-resistant, and should be designed in a
way that does not allow the speed limiter setting on the ECM to be
adjusted to let the vehicle exceed 68 mph.
4. Immediately upon the rule taking effect, manufacturers should be
prohibited from setting the ECM speed limiter to a maximum speed of
greater than 68 mph. However, this requirement should not take effect
earlier than the effective date of a Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) rule prohibiting vehicle owners or operators
from setting the ECM speed limiter at a level greater than 68 mph for
newly manufactured trucks.
5. The effective date for installation of a tamper-resistant ECM
should be established with a period of time that will allow
manufacturers to undergo a systems integration process. The change to
the engine ECM may affect other devices on the vehicle; therefore,
manufacturers need some time to ensure that the vehicle functions
properly. ATA encourages NHTSA to seek information from manufacturers
to determine the length of time necessary to come into compliance with
the rule.
6. An appropriate tolerance to accommodate variations in
manufacturing, wear, and maintenance throughout the lifecycle of the
vehicle. For example, the same diameter heavy truck tire but with a
different width and sidewall aspect ratio may have a 15-20 revolutions
per mile difference which will affect the actual top speed of the truck
with a governed speed of 68 mph. ATA recommends that any rulemaking
pertaining to this petition reference SAE J678, J862, and J1226
Recommended Practices.
In addition to items similar to those in ATA's petition, Road Safe
America also included an item on retrofitting in its petition:
1. Every class 7 and class 8 commercial motor vehicle manufactured
after the year 1990 shall be equipped with an electronic engine speed
governor.
Summary of Comments
On January 26, 2007, NHTSA and FMCSA published a joint Request for
Comments Notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comments on
[[Page 79]]
the ATA and Road Safe America petitions. The Department of
Transportation Docket Management System received approximately 3,850
comments into Docket No. NHTSA-2007-26851, the majority of which were
submitted by private citizens. Of these, many comments supported a
regulation that would limit the speed of large trucks to 68 mph, which
included comments from trucking fleets and consumer advocacy groups,
and others. Other comments submitted by independent owner-operator
truckers, a trucking fleet association, and private citizens were
opposed to the rulemaking requested in the petitions. The remaining
comments did not explicitly indicate a position with regard to the
petitions.
Comments from private citizens supporting the petitions include
responses from individuals who were involved in crashes with heavy
trucks or had friends/relatives who were involved in crashes with large
trucks. The private citizen supporters of the petitions are typically
non-truck drivers who stated that they are intimidated by the hazardous
driving practices of some truck drivers, such as speeding, tailgating,
and abrupt lane changes. These commenters expressed the belief that
limiting the speed of heavy trucks to 68 mph will result in safer
highways.
Some of the organizations supporting the petition provided similar
reasons for their support and the selected comments summarized below
cover the range of issues they discussed.
Schneider National, Inc., a major trucking fleet, indicated that
its trucks have been speed limited to 65 mph since 1996. According to
Schneider's crash data from its own fleet, vehicles without speed
limiters accounted for 40 percent of the company's serious collisions
while driving 17 percent of the company's total miles. Schneider stated
that its vehicles have a significantly lower crash rate than large
trucks that are not speed limited or have a maximum speed setting
greater than 65 mph.
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., another trucking fleet, commented that a
differential speed between cars and large trucks will result from
trucks being equipped with speed limiters set below the posted speed
limit. This speed differential may cause a safety hazard. However, J.
B. Hunt believes that the current safety hazard caused by large trucks
traveling at speeds in excess of posted limits is a greater safety
hazard.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) commented that
large trucks require 20-40 percent more braking distance than passenger
cars and light trucks for a given travel speed. Advocates does not
believe that the data in the 1991 report to Congress \2\ are still
valid because the speed limits posted by the States over the past ten
years are much higher than the national posted speed limit of 55 mph
that was in effect in 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Comercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices (1991), DOT HS
807 725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) stated that 97
percent of the occupants that are killed in crashes between heavy
trucks and passenger vehicles are passenger vehicle occupants. IIHS
stated that on-board electronic engine control modules (ECM) will
maintain the desired speed control for vehicles when enforcement
efforts are not sufficient due to lack of resources. IIHS stated that
there is already widespread use of speed governors by carriers and a
mandate will result in net safety and economic benefits.
The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) stated that large
trucks are 3 percent of registered vehicles and represent about 8
percent of the total miles traveled nationwide. Also, GHSA believes
that it is prudent to consider speed limiting devices since they are
currently installed in large trucks and can be adapted to be tamper-
resistant. It stated that conventional approaches to vehicle speed
control do not provide optimal benefits because of a lack of
enforcement resources and too many miles of highway to cover.
Several comments, including those from ATA's Truck Maintenance
Council, provided information concerning economic, non-safety benefits
that would result from large truck speed limiters. The Truck
Maintenance Council stated that an increase of 1 mph results in a 0.1
mpg increase in fuel consumption, and for every 1 mph increase in speed
over 55 mph, there is a reduction of 1 percent in tire tread life.
Comments opposing rulemaking that would require speed limiters on
large trucks to be set to a maximum speed of 68 mph were received from
many independent truck drivers, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA), the Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), and
private citizens (non-truck drivers).
OOIDA commented that the 1991 report to Congress \3\ is still valid
today--there is no need to mandate speed limiters because the target
population (high speed crashes) is still small compared to the total
number of truck crashes. According to OOIDA, speed limiters would not
have an effect on crashes in areas where the posted speed limit for
trucks is 65 mph or below. OOIDA believes that the petitioners are
attempting to force all trucks to be speed limited so that the major
trucking companies with speed limited vehicles can compete for drivers
with the independent trucking operations that have not limited their
speeds to 68 mph or below. OOIDA also stated that it is not necessary
to set large truck speed limiters at 68 mph to realize most of the
economic benefits cited by the petitioners because improved fuel
economy and reduced emissions can be achieved with improved truck
designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Comercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices (1991), DOT HS
807 725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCA commented that a speed differential will be created in many
States by the 68-mph speed limit for heavy trucks and a higher speed
limit for other vehicles. This speed differential will result in more
interaction between cars and trucks and may be an additional safety
risk for cars and trucks.
According to comments from CDW Transport, a trucking fleet, speed
limiters should be required on passenger vehicles as well as commercial
motor vehicles.
Several comments from private citizens and small businesses opposed
to the petitions stated that speed is not the only cause of crashes,
that weather and highway conditions are also significant factors. There
were comments stating that passenger vehicles cause the majority of the
crashes between trucks and passenger vehicles. Some comments stated
that truck drivers will experience more fatigue with a 68-mph maximum
speed, which could result in more crashes; some comments expressed the
opinion that State and local law enforcement agencies should enforce
the speed of all vehicles on the nation's roads and highways; several
comments favored a 75-mph limit for truck speed limiters, instead of 68
mph, to match the highest posted speed limit in the country.
The Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA) provided information
concerning the cost of tamper-proof speed limiters for large trucks.
TMA estimates a one-time cost of $35 to $50 million would be required
to develop ECMs with tamper-resistant speed limiters and a one-time
cost of $150 million to $200 million to develop ECMs with tamper-proof
speed limiters. With both of these ECM designs, there would be
additional costs to make adjustments to the ECM for maximum speed, tire
size, and drive axle and transmission gear ratio information.
[[Page 80]]
Research Review
The agency conducted a preliminary review of research in its
evaluation of the merits of these petitions. Along with research
conducted by Transport Canada, \4\ the agency has considered a DOT
Research and Special Programs Administration report published in 2005,
\5\ and a synthesis of safety practice from the Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies published in 2008.\6\ Both of these
reports indicate that there is a potential for speed limiting devices
to decrease crash severity. Both of these documents also contain survey
information pertaining to the current fleet usage of these devices and
the speed settings of the equipment currently on the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The reports are available at http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/
roadsafety/safevehicles-motorcarriers-speedlimiter-index-251.htm.
\5\ ``Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile Speed
Limits Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways,'' MBTC 2048.
\6\ ``Safety Impacts of Speed Limiter Device Installation on
Commercial Trucks and Buses,'' Available at http://www.trb.org/Main/
Blurbs.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the currently available studies have been useful in the
agency's grant consideration, additional information on this topic is
forthcoming. The agency anticipates the publication of a report on the
findings of a study being conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.\7\ The main objective of this research is to
quantitatively evaluate the safety impact and associated economic
benefits of speed limiters in commercial motor vehicles. This analysis
is expected to include safety impacts as well as fuel and tire
consumption data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Information on this study is available at http://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/art-research-Safety-Effectiveness-
of-Speed-Limiters.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Speed Limiter Regulations
The European Union has limited the speed of large trucks and buses
under its jurisdiction to 62 mph since 1994. In Australia, large trucks
have been limited to 62 mph since 1990 with a 56-mph limit for road
trains (a road train consists of a tractor pulling multiple
trailers).\8\ The European Union and Australia cited economic and
safety benefits as the reasons for adopting large truck speed limiter
legislation and regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Australian Design Rule (ADR) 65/00--Maximum Road Speed
Limiting for Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Omnibuses specifies the
devices or systems used to limit the maximum road speed of heavy
goods vehicles. For additional information, go to http://
www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/7ebc7a9d-b94b-4ee8-bf82-aab41c743252/
speed--limiter--requirements.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More recently, Japan and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and
Quebec have also mandated speed limiters. Japan limited large trucks to
56 mph in 2003. Quebec and Ontario limited the speed of large trucks to
65 effective January 1, 2009, although they did not begin assessing
fines until July 1, 2009.\9\ In addition to economic and safety
benefits, the two provinces cited environmental benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ONTARIO AND QU[Eacute]BEC MANDATORY HEAVY TRUCK SPEED
LIMITERS--FACT SHEET. Available at http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/
page/portal/Librairie/Publications/en/camionnage/limiteurs_vitesse/
speed_limiters_note_info.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The granting of the petitions from ATA and Road Safe America,
however, does not mean that a final rule will be issued. The
determination of whether to issue a rule is made after study of the
requested action and the various alternatives in the course of the
rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued: December 27, 2010.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards.
[FR Doc. 2010-33057 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P