[Federal Register: January 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 3904-3907]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26ja07-171]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-26851]
Motor Vehicle and Carrier Safety Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice; Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA and FMCSA solicit comments on separate, but similar
petitions for rulemaking from the American Trucking Associations (ATA)
and Road Safe America and a group of nine motor carriers, to require
devices that would limit the speed of certain trucks and to prohibit
owners and operators from adjusting the speed limiting devices. The
agencies are soliciting public comments to supplement a review of the
material presented by the petitioners, along with an evaluation of data
or other relevant information the agencies may already have, in
conducting a technical review of the petitions. After considering the
technical review, and taking into account appropriate factors, the
NHTSA Administrator will make a decision whether to grant or deny
either or both of these petitions.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than March 27, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by logging
onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click
on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to view instructions for
filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how you submit your
comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket
from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. George Soodoo or Mr. Samuel Daniel
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration at (202) 366-2720
or by FAX at (202) 366-7002, or Mr. Mike Huntley of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration at (202) 366-4009 or by FAX at (202) 366-
8842.
You may send mail to either of these officials in care of their
respective agencies at 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
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 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) to require vehicle manufacturers to install a device
limiting the speed of trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR)
of greater than 26,000 pounds to no more than 68 miles per hour (mph).
Concurrently, the ATA petitioned FMCSA, pursuant to 49 CFR 389.31, to
initiate a rulemaking to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSR) to prohibit owners and operators from adjusting the
speed limiting devices in affected vehicles in a way that enables the
vehicles to exceed a speed of 68 mph.
The ATA contends that reducing speed-related crashes involving
trucks is critical to the safety mission of both NHTSA and FMCSA, and
that these new requirements are necessary in order to reduce the number
and severity of crashes involving large trucks. ATA's petition states:
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 states:
ATA analyzed five years of fatal truck-involved crash data. We
found that in 20 percent of truck-involved 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 costs when
considering the lost 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 trucks and truck tractors associated with the speed limiting
devices since they are already installed on these vehicles during
manufacture. Also, the ATA contends that the cost to carriers for
the increase in time required to complete a delivery will be off-set
by savings in fuel consumption, fewer crashes, and less equipment
wear.
The ATA petition may be accessed on-line through the Department
of Transportation's Docket Management System at the following Web
address: http://dms.dot.gov, at the docket number cited in the
heading of this document.
Road Safe America Petition. On September 8, 2006, Road Safe
America, a public safety interest group, and a group of nine motor
carriers \1\ petitioned FMCSA to amend the FMCSRs to require (1)
Electronic speed
[[Page 3905]]
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. 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 commercial motor vehicles (CMV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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., Convenant Transport, Inc., and
Jet Express, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Road Safe America petition states:
Sixty eight miles per hour is the correct maximum speed setting.
This is the speed setting promoted by the American Trucking
Associations. It allows truck traffic to maintain flow without
reaching dangerously high speeds. It is estimated that over 50% of
commercial trucks in operation today are voluntarily governed
through the engine electronic control modules at speeds not
exceeding 70 mph. Many companies, including the motor carrier
Petitioners, have adopted speed governing policies at or below 65
mph. No studies suggest that the adoption of speed governed
limitations below 70 mph have in any way detracted from truck
safety. On the contrary, it has been the experience of those
Petitioners that governed speed in this range reduces accident
frequency.
It is noted that NHTSA, and not FMCSA, is the agency within the
Department of Transportation (DOT) that is responsible for developing
and issuing FMVSSs that establish the minimum safety requirements that
every new motor vehicle sold in the United States must meet. If, as a
result of the ATA and Road Safe America petitions, a rulemaking
proceeding is conducted that ultimately establishes requirements to
equip trucks with electronic speed governors 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 governor
meeting the requirements specified in the applicable FMVSS.
As the ATA and Road Safe America petitions address substantively
identical issues, and given that NHTSA has been delegated the authority
to both (1) Establish regulations for newly manufactured motor
vehicles, and (2) if deemed appropriate, require existing CMV to be
retrofitted with equipment if such equipment is based upon or similar
to an FMVSS, the Road Safe America petition has been placed in the same
docket as the ATA petition. NHTSA and FMCSA will work together to
address both petitions concurrently.
Large Truck Crash Data
In general, the number of large trucks (GVWR greater than 10,000
pounds) involved in fatal and injury crashes has remained relatively
steady from 1995 to 2005, and the corresponding involvement rates (rate
per 100,000 registered vehicles and rate per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled), have steadily decreased during that time period. In the
latest data available, the vehicle involvement rates for large trucks
involved in fatal crashes in 2004 were near the record lows established
in 2002, and the vehicle involvement rates for large trucks involved in
injury crashes established new lows by a significant margin.
Specifically, in 2005, 442,000 large trucks (GVWR greater than
10,000 pounds) were involved in traffic crashes in the United States,
of which 4,932 were involved in fatal crashes. A total of 5,212 people
died (12 percent of all the traffic fatalities reported in 2005), and
an additional 114,000 were injured in those crashes. In 2005, large
trucks accounted for 8 percent of all vehicles involved in fatal
crashes and 4 percent of all vehicles involved in injury and property-
damage-only crashes. In 2004, large trucks accounted for 3 percent of
all registered vehicles and 8 percent of total vehicle miles traveled
(2005 registered vehicle and vehicle miles traveled data are not
available).
No motor vehicle crash database in the U.S. focuses on the causes
of, or the factors related to, large truck crashes. The primary
national traffic safety databases all contain descriptive data
primarily collected from police crash reports. NHTSA's Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) includes descriptive data on vehicles,
drivers, roadways, and environmental conditions collected from police
reports, emergency medical service reports, hospital records, and
coroner's reports.\2\ The Trucks Involved in Fatal Accidents (TIFA)
database from the University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute supplements FARS data with additional data from interviews
with police, drivers, and motor carriers. NHTSA's General Estimates
System (GES) is a probability-based, nationally representative sample
of all police-reported fatal, injury, and property-damage-only crashes,
which collects descriptive data based exclusively on police crash
reports. FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System includes a
limited amount of descriptive data on all trucks and buses involved in
fatal, injury, or tow-away crashes, reported by the States from their
police reports, and is used primarily for enforcement purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FARS data may be accessed at http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the issue of speed in large truck crashes, the 2004
FARS data indicate that ``driving too fast for conditions or in excess
of the posted speed limit'' was listed as a driver-related factor in
8.1 percent of all fatal crashes involving large trucks (505 of 4,799
total crashes). According to the 2004 FARS data, driving too fast for
conditions or in excess of the posted speed limit trailed only ``not in
lane'' (noted in 10.5 percent of all fatal crashes) in the list of
truck driver-related factors recorded in fatal large truck crashes.
Importantly, driver-related factors were only recorded in 39.4 percent
of the large truck fatal crashes in the 2004 FARS data; no driver-
related factors were recorded in the remaining 60.6 percent of large
truck fatal crashes.
Given the shortcomings regarding the causes of, or the factors
related to, large truck crashes as described above, the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA), P.L. 106-159, mandated a study
to determine the causes of, and contributing factors to, crashes
involving CMVs. In response, FMCSA and NHTSA conducted a multiyear,
nationwide study that contains the same type of descriptive data as the
primary national traffic safety databases described above, but also
focuses on pre-crash factors such as driver fatigue and distraction,
vehicle condition, weather, and roadway problems. As a result, the
Large-Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) is a comprehensive national
examination of all factors related to causation in large truck
crashes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The LTCCS data can be downloaded at http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/ltccs/
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A nationally representative sample of large-truck fatal and injury
crashes was investigated during 2001 to 2003, at 24 sites in 17 States.
Each crash involved at least one large truck and resulted in at least
one fatality or injury. Data were collected on up to 1,000 elements in
each crash. The total sample involved 967 crashes, which included 1,127
large trucks, 959 non-truck motor vehicles, 251 fatalities, and 1,408
injuries.
The data collected by the LTCCS provide detailed descriptions about
the crash environment (i.e., weather, road conditions, lighting
conditions), vehicles involved in the crash (i.e., vehicle type,
weight, cargo type, brakes, air bag status), and drivers (i.e., driving
record, fatigue, sleep patterns, restraint use), as well as information
about passengers and nonmotorists involved in the large-truck crashes.
Key factors
[[Page 3906]]
that led to the crash were recorded to assist researchers in measuring
associations between certain crash types and the events that led to the
crashes.
The coding of the events surrounding the crash begins with the
``critical event,'' ``critical reason'' for the critical event, and
``associated factors'' present. Associated factors include any of
approximately 1,000 conditions or circumstances present at the time of
the crash, and were selected from a broad range of factors thought to
contribute to crash risk. Specifically with respect to the issue of
speed, ``traveling too fast for conditions'' was the second-most coded
associated factor in all truck crashes, having been coded in 22.9
percent of all crashes.
The LTCCS contains a large amount of descriptive data, and
additional analysis must be conducted in order to identify specific
crash risk factors. The LTCCS has been made electronically available to
the public so that organizations and individuals will have access to it
in order to conduct analyses that are of special interest to them.
NHTSA and FMCSA believe that analysis of these data by government
agencies, universities, private groups, and individuals will increase
the total truck crash factors knowledge base.
Report to Congress on Commercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices
Section 9108 of the Truck and Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1988,
Public Law 101-690, dated November 18, 1988, required:
``The Secretary shall conduct a study on whether or not devices
which control the speed of commercial motor vehicles enhance safe
operation of such vehicles * * * (and) * * * not later than thirty
months after the date of enactment of this Act, * * * shall submit
to Congress a report on the results of the study * * * together with
recommendations * * * on whether or not to make the use of speed
control devices mandatory for commercial motor vehicles.''
In response, NHTSA published a Report to Congress titled
``Commercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Safety,'' (DOT HS 807 725; May
10, 1991).\4\ This report reviewed the problem of heavy vehicle
speeding (in particular, at speeds greater than 65 mph) and speeding-
related crash involvements. 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 found 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-unit trucks, which present a more complex
picture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Report to Congress has been placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report found that non-detectable radar studies show that
highway speed limit compliance by combination-unit trucks was poor, but
better than that of passenger vehicles. In that study, most trucks that
were speeding traveled at just over the posted speed limit. Crash
statistics indicated that speeding was generally less involved in
combination-unit truck crashes than it was in 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 and
speed-limiting devices, but concluded that there was not sufficient
justification to consider requiring all heavy trucks to be so equipped.
Problem size statistics suggested that the number of target crashes was
low, e.g., approximately 30 fatal crash involvements per year for
combination-unit trucks. This small crash problem size, together with
uncertainties regarding the potential for crash reduction, suggested
that the benefits of mandatory speed limitation were questionable.
The report also noted that an important caveat related to all
speeding-related crash statistics cited in the report was that the
categorization ``speeding-related'' or ``high-speed related'' did not
necessarily assure that speeding was the primary cause of the crash or
any resulting fatalities. Virtually all crashes involve multiple
contributing factors. The elimination of any one factor--e.g., high
speed--may or may not prevent the crash. Thus, the speeding-related and
high-speed-related crashes identified in the report should actually be
viewed as potential target crashes for speed control devices. Although
speed control devices (if not tampered with) are 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 is unknown.
Request for Comments
In order to supplement the information provided by ATA and Road
Safe America in support of the petitions for rulemaking, and the data
and relevant information that is already available to the agencies
regarding speed limiters, NHTSA and FMCSA are requesting public
comments on the issue presented in the petitions. NHTSA and FMCSA will
use this collective information in the development of the technical
review that will serve as the basis for determining whether to grant or
deny either or both of the petitions. Currently, vehicle speed limits
are established by the State and local governments, and enforced by
monitoring the speed of the vehicles on the highways. Specific
questions are presented below:
1. NHTSA and FMCSA are aware that several motor carriers already
voluntarily equip their fleets with devices that limit the maximum
speed of trucks. What different types of speed-limiting technology are
currently being used, and what are the costs associated with installing
and maintaining these devices? Should the Federal government require
that trucks with a GVWR exceeding 26,000 pounds be equipped with
devices that would limit the speed of those trucks to not more than 68
mph? What has been the experience of truck fleets with the use of
speed-limiting devices? What speed settings are used by these truck
fleets? To what extent are these speed-limiting devices tamper
resistant? How reliable are the speed limiting devices currently in
use? Have there been durability or accuracy problems? Where possible,
please quantify the impact on crash involvement with data comparing the
crash experience (number of crashes, number of fatalities, amount of
property damage, or other crash statistics) before the speed-limiting
devices were installed with the crash experience after the devices were
installed. Also, what has been the impact of these speed limiting
devices on truck engine emissions, fuel efficiency, and tire life?
2. The 1991 Report to Congress concluded that the safety or crash
reduction benefits that might be obtained from truck speed limiting
devices were not sufficient to justify mandating the devices. The
conclusion was based on the determination that speed-limiting devices
would have no effect on vehicle speed or crash likelihood at travel
speeds below their set speed (e.g., 70 mph); the vast majority of truck
crashes occur on roadways with a speed limit of 65 mph or less; police
crash report data indicate that very few truck crashes (about 0.2
percent) occur at estimated truck travel speeds in excess of 70 mph;
and the report also concluded that speed-limiting devices can
effectively limit truck speed but may not be tamper-proof. Are the data
and associated findings of the 1991 Report to Congress on the same
subjects still valid? Are there any other studies on the effectiveness
of truck speed-limiting devices, which were conducted since the 1991
Report to Congress?
[[Page 3907]]
3. Are alternative approaches (i.e., public information and
education programs, increased speed enforcement, driver licensing
programs) available, and if implemented, have these alternative
approaches improved highway speed limit compliance? Have these
alternatives reduced the number or severity of truck crash events?
4. ATA stated in its petition that ``it is impossible to determine
the actual number of potential crashes that might be avoided by
limiting top truck speed to 68 mph.'' The ATA further stated that
``reasonable assumptions can be made to show that the number of crashes
that could be avoided is significant.'' What assumptions can be made to
estimate the number of potential crashes that might be avoided or
mitigated by limiting truck speeds to 68 mph?
5. What impact will limiting truck speeds to 68 mph across the U.S.
have on truck crash involvement (number of crashes, number of
fatalities, amount of property damage, or other crash parameters)? Are
there potential safety implications regarding the increased speed
differentials between heavy trucks and light vehicles using the same
roadways?
6. The ATA petition stated that limiting the speed of trucks to 68
mph may have a small negative impact on driver's wages in the ``long-
haul truck load sector.'' What is the anticipated ``long-haul truck
load sector'' driver wage impact associated with limiting the speed of
trucks to 68 mph and the wage impact for drivers in other sectors of
the truck transportation industry? What vehicle operating cost impact
would a truck speed limit of 68 mph have on companies in the truck
transportation industry? The Road Safe America petition contained a
proposal that speed limiters be retrofitted on all trucks manufactured
after 1990. What are the cost and practicability implications of
retrofitting these devices?
7. In the European Union (EU), heavy trucks with a GVWR over 26,000
pounds are regulated with speed limiting devices and limited to 90 km/h
(56 mph). Are there any available data or analyses of the European
experience regarding the use of speed limiting devices on trucks and
their effectiveness in reducing crashes?
8. The ATA petition stated that the enforcement costs of the 68 mph
speed limit for trucks could be minimized by using an enforcement
system with several features. ATA recommended use of the Safety Status
Measurement System (SafeStat) to identify trucking companies with speed
limit violations. SafeStat is an automated analysis system developed
for FMCSA which combines current and historical safety performance data
to measure the relative safety fitness of interstate commercial motor
carriers. The ATA also recommended that compliance reviews (CR) be used
to ensure that companies have a maintenance program for the speed
controllers, that a test for maximum vehicle speed be added to 49 CFR
Part 396, that penalties for tampering with the speed control devices
be high, and that drivers be required to report any problems with the
speed control device during a post-trip vehicle inspection report. What
would be the vehicle operating costs associated with maintenance of the
speed limiting devices? What would be the cost of identifying companies
with speeding truck drivers through SafeStat, CR, or some other vehicle
monitoring system?
9. The ATA and Road Safe America petitions request that the top
speed of trucks with a GVWR of greater than 26,000 pounds be limited to
not more than 68 mph. Under the definitions in 49 CFR Part 390.5, a
truck is defined as ``any self-propelled commercial motor vehicle
except a truck tractor, designed and/or used for the transportation of
property.'' This definition does not include motor coaches, and neither
of the petitions addresses the potential applicability of the proposed
requirements for speed limiters on motor coaches. However, motor
coaches are considered CMVs under the definitions in 49 CFR Part 390.5,
and the majority of motor coaches exceed the 26,000-pound GVWR
threshold proposed in the petitions. Should the proposed amendments to
require speed limiters on trucks with a GVWR of greater than 26,000
pounds be extended to apply also to motor coaches? Do any existing
motor coaches utilize speed-limiting devices/technology in current
operations?
Decision To Grant or Deny
If either or both of the petitions for rulemaking are granted, a
rulemaking proceeding will be initiated in accordance with the
applicable NHTSA procedures. However, it is emphasized that the
granting of a petition, and the initiation of a rulemaking, does not
mean that the rule in question will be issued. The decision to issue a
rule will be made on the basis of all available data and information
gathered in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, and an analysis of
the public comments received in response to any rulemaking notices that
may be published in the Federal Register.
Authority: NHTSA: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999, Public Law 106-159, Section 101(f); FMCSA:
49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.73.
Issued on: January 22, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA.
Rose A. McMurray,
Chief Safety Officer, FMCSA.
[FR Doc. 07-326 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P