WASHINGTON — House Republicans used a hearing meant to discuss implementation of President Joe Biden’s infrastructure law to push back against an upcoming proposed regulation to mandate speed limiters on trucks.
One of the biggest concerns surfacing in the three-and-a-half-hour House Transportation and Infrastructure highway subcommittee hearing on Wednesday related to the ethics of the speed limiter rulemaking process.
U.S. Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, questioned Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration chief Robin Hutcheson about a potential connection between FMCSA rescinding in September a 68 mph limit on electronic speed governors in trucks — which had initially been included in an agenda summary of the upcoming proposed rule — and a fundraiser she attended the same week.
(Photo: House T&I Committee)
The fundraiser was “sponsored by labor unions, trial attorneys, large trucking companies,” Nehls said, all of which “had been pressuring your agency to select a speed limiter rule at 60 mph, well below what the agency had indicated it was prepared to select.”
Nehls asked Hutcheson if the credibility of the rulemaking is damaged by attending events sponsored by supporters of a regulation that her agency is still crafting.
“We take very seriously the fidelity of the process of rulemaking, and we don’t discuss the contents of the rule even as we’re engaging with our stakeholders,” Hutcheson affirmed.
“I’ll trust you on this,” Nehls responded. “But I hope you equally consider the 15,000 comments from America’s truckers who have provided input on this rulemaking. They’re not going to be able to host a big fundraiser for you.”
Five other Republican lawmakers also took issue with the rule and made it the focus of their questioning: Mike Bost of Illinois, Doug LaMalfa of California, Eric Burlison of Missouri, Jefferson Van Drew of New Jersey and Mike Collins of Georgia.
Bost, a former truck driver, said that when his home state instituted different speeds for cars and trucks it led to more accidents.
“The other problem is that you have changed the vehicle’s dynamics and are therefore endangering people rather than saving them, because a speed limiter doesn’t allow a driver to make decisions to either speed up to get out of the way or to go around a situation occurring in front of them,” he said.
Burlison questioned the wisdom of a speed limiter mandate “at a time truckers are already heavily regulated” by hours-of-service rules and are under the gun to get loads delivered.
“Many will be in a situation where they have to make up time, and because they have a speed limiter, the only place for them to make up time is probably on city streets, suburbs, through construction zones. Are you concerned about the motivation you’re creating?”
“We share your commitment to drivers and their safety,” Hutcheson responded, noting that she recently spent time with the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, which opposes speed limiters, to listen to their concerns firsthand.
“I would encourage you not to implement the rule,” Burlison said, because “I think you would have an outcry from that community.”
Collins, who started his own trucking company, agreed that truck drivers are overregulated. “We have speed limiters out there now,” he said. “They’re called speed limit signs.”
In addition, he said, FMCSA indirectly monitors speeds through safety scores that show when drivers get ticketed for speeding and which are also used by insurance companies when assessing risk. “The free market works, and when a driver is not insurable due to speeding, then he or she is let go.”
FMCSA is expected to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on speed limiters by the end of the month, according to the latest update from the Office of Management and Budget. Hutcheson was not questioned on whether the agency was on track to meet the schedule.