WASHINGTON — Three federal rulemakings that have cost implications for truckers and motor carriers are on the short-term horizon for a former top official at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Earl Adams, who served as FMCSA’s deputy administrator and chief counsel under former administrator Robin Hutcheson, led a team at the agency that is developing the first major set of rules for high-level automation in heavy-duty trucks.
The result of that effort — a proposed rule on autonomous driving systems (ADS) — is on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s calendar for rollout in December.
Combined with a final rule on automatic emergency braking (AEB) and a proposed rule to set a federal top speed for trucks, they rank as the most anticipated regulations on Adams’ radar.
“Whether the outcome of the election is a Trump or a Harris administration, I think you’re going to continue to see significant efforts to collect data around AV [autonomous vehicle] systems already deployed on the roads,” Adams told FreightWaves in an interview.
ADS guard rails
Adams, now a partner at the law firm Hogan Lovells, said the Trump administration took an industry-driven approach toward the development of autonomous vehicle operations by encouraging feedback from the companies that could benefit from them the most.
The Biden administration, in contrast, “was focused on leveraging technology to get safer outcomes,” he said. “We were willing to establish guardrails – that is, an actual rule – as opposed to letting the industry dictate what would happen, and I spent the better part of my two and a half years in the administration trying to develop those guardrails.”
Higher costs for training and certifying individuals performing enhanced inspections for higher levels of automation are expected to be considered in the proposed rule, as well as the potential for sidelining trucks and their drivers with additional inspections that could reduce the amount of time available for revenue-generating service.
Adams cautioned, however, that given recent and growing concerns from labor, getting an AV rule proposed next year could prove difficult even in a Harris administration.
Automatic braking rule to set new standards
A final rule regulating a specific type of automation — braking — has been scheduled for publication in the Federal Register in January, to be issued jointly by FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The rulemaking “is expected to establish performance standards and motor carrier maintenance requirements for AEB systems on heavy trucks and accompanying test procedures for measuring the performance of the AEB systems,” according to a rule summary.
“I’ll be looking to see if they actually move forward on that,” Adams said. “We have a braking rule in place now for passenger cars, but we saw an opportunity to work hand in glove with NHTSA to extend that to trucking.”
The National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC), which represents thousands of small-business motor carriers, contends that technology mandates such as AEB will ultimately raise costs for shippers and consumers, due to higher capital costs for new trucks.
“Further, more expensive, new model trucks slow turnover of older trucks,” said NASTC President David Owen, in comments submitted on the AEB proposed rule.
Owen also asserts that the safety case for mandating AEBs has not yet been adequately assessed nor has the technology been perfected. For example, when AEB’s activate suddenly, it can catch a truck driver by surprise, he said.
“The suddenness of the device’s action causes near-misses and may require evasive action on the professional driver’s part. At present and for the foreseeable future, AEBs present more of a threat to road safety than a solution.”
Speed limiter anxiety
An even more controversial rulemaking on the horizon for trucking that Adams is keeping tabs on is a requirement by FMCSA to limit the top speeds of heavy-duty truck engines equipped with electronic engine control units. That speed limit is to be determined by a proposed rule slated for May 2025.
Much of the criticism FMCSA received was from smaller truck owners and owner-operators, who believe that limiting speeds would make it more difficult to compete with larger carriers – many of which already employ speed limiting devices in their fleets – and would put them out of business.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, which strongly opposes speed limiting devices, also contends that they are also unsafe due to increasing speed differentials that would occur with other vehicles on the highway if there was a mandated top speed for heavy trucks.
Adams acknowledged that the FMCSA “received a lot of criticism for the speed limiter proposed rule,” he said.
“But even now, looking back nine months or so to when I was at the agency, we approached this without bias or preconceived ideas, whether speed limiters are good or bad,” he said. “It was an extremely apolitical approach to a technology that has been around for years among fleet owners.
“What was on our mind was the fact that we have 40,000 deaths on the highways per year, with 3,000 coming from commercial trucks, and a large percentage of those were speed-related. So if we can use technology to limit the speed and thus can save lives — that’s the reason we took this on and are so committed to trying to solve it.”
Adam Russell
Automatic braking on ice and snow will cause accidents and kill people. Having every truck going the same speed is pretty stupid, the backups caused by 2 or more trucks going side by side will be miles long everywhere, every day, I know, because I will do it…
James Link
Wouldn’t these rule makings fall under the Chevron verdict from the Supreme Court this summer stating that bearuecrats don’t have the power to create laws. That this has to be done by congressional laws,voted on by the house and senate. The speed limit mandate is so arbitrary to install without congressional approval that it stinks with favoritism of lobbyists and large trucking organizations. Thiskind of rule will definitely impact the supplychain. No one in the FMSCA,is qualified to have input into the transportation of goods,because they are not transportation experts. They are degreed individuals who have been in trench in the bureaucracy of DC.
Robert Cooper
They won’t propose a speed limiter on cars and other light duty vehicles but they will for heavy trucks? Not to mention that they’re ignoring the evidence that shows that the majority of accidents related to trucks happens at speeds under 45mph which totally negates their argument about saving lives with speed limiters. If you think that there is a driver shortage now (Which there isn’t), then you’ll definitely see one after any imposition of a speed limiter rule. When I’m driving across I-80 in western Nebraska without a vehicle even in sight of me, why should I be stuck doing something as slow as 60mph when the speed limit is 75mph? It makes no sense other than to placate a very vocal minority who oppose heavy trucks being able to do much of anything.
Craig Crouse
It’s not the speed it is all the illegals out driving that can’t read the signs because they can’t read English and letting these out here with just a permit drive with out a licensed driver with ya have lost ur minds r just stupid I have been driving for 50 yrs and ya have really done some dumb things but this takes the cake
JA
Reference Adams opinions on the use of speed limiters for CMV’s is very troubling. These are vague statements about safer outcomes because large trucking firms use them? First, large firms don’t use them as their primary focus for safety, its about fuel usage or rather their belief it is saving them money. Second, it is doubtful that the reduced speed of trucks in large commercial fleets would show a clear and convincing correlation to “safer outcomes”. Poor driver training will always equal poor outcomes when it comes to proper and safe operations of a CMV. I am sure there is ample evidence to demonstrate the lack of regulations surrounding “Professional Driver Training” ensuring competent operation of CMV’s under all road and load conditions would be of greater value to safer outcomes. Since, speed is a factor, above 30mph, in most crashes resulting in serious injury of death. It would seem the trucks ability to travel at posted speeds of any road way isn’t the issue. This is nothing more than a Red Herring and should be contested by truckload carriers and their associations.
Al
This is a big reason drivers need to be careful who they vote for. The stat he quoted in the article is 40, 000 deaths but only 3,000 caused by commercial vehicles. To anyone other than an idiot you should correct the 37,000 deaths with even more zeal than just going after the commercial end. let’s make accidents survivable rather then more enforced training for passenger cars
Moose
That’s it make the price of everything go up just to slow trucks down ! What you need to be looking at are all the foreign drivers we have out here on the roads , I drive a cmv and it pisses me off when they fly by me and they are the ones who don’t care about who they hurt ! Hell most can’t even speak English so how the hell did they get a CDL ?
Nobody
So 7.5% of the 40,000 deaths come from trucks…humph, let’s not do anything to fix the issue but again and again go after the trucking industry even though we are not the problem?