It has been a while since trucking regulations have been in the news. With the last administration taking a decidedly anti-regulatory position, many regulations have been sitting in the docket. One of these is the speed limiter mandate. And now it is back in the news, with a bipartisan bill having been introduced in the U.S. House of representatives that would require speed limiters on heavy trucks.
While little is currently known abut the bill, the Senate introduced a similar bill in 2019. At the time the bill was directed at the Department of Transportation, directing it to develop regulations requiring speed limiters on all commercial motor vehicles with a gross weight of 26,001 pounds or more. As we reported on before, the bill would set speed limits at 65 mph.
Will It Pass?
The bill in question has been called the Cullum Owings Large Truck Safe Operating Speed Act, and is named after a 22 year-old Atlanta resident who was killed in a car-truck collision in 2002. The bill’s sponsors include Lucy McBath (D-GA) in the House and Johnny Isakson (D-GA) in the Senate. Advocacy groups that have endorsed the bill include:
- The Truckload Carriers Association
- The Trucking Alliance
- AAA
- The Institute for Safer Trucking
- Road Safe America
- The Safe Operating Speed Alliance
- The Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys
With so many advocacy groups backing the bill, it may very well be that it could be passed on a bipartisan basis, even in such a closely divided government. The argument these groups make is that there is no reason why trucks carrying that much freight should be traveling over 65 mph. They believe that this legislation would reduce the severity of large truck crashes.
That the speed limiter regulation comes up again now is no surprise. Many were expecting trucking regulations to come back into focus with a new administration in the White House. And the Biden administration is not averse to regulations as the administration before it. Yet, it wasn’t a new Democratic administration that brought the issue back to the forefront.
Advocacy Groups Take a Stand
In fact, it was in March of this year that the American Trucking Associations and the Road Safe American safety group sent a letter to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg making clear their support for regulations setting speed limits. Yet not every trucking advocacy group is taking the same line.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) quickly responded, sending their own statement to the DOT outlining their reasons why they oppose speed limiter legislation. They point to what they believe would be an unsafe speed differential between passenger cars and the big rigs they share the road with.
Still not all supply chain and trucking advocacy organizations have taken a stand. Wherever they land on the speed limiter rule, most advocacy groups, like the OOIDA, fight back against proposals that specifically target the trucking industry with new regulations and mandates. Many feel that we just came out of the ELD mandate, so they would like to have time to adjust before another rule impacts the way they do their jobs.
And yet, the speed limiter debate is not the only trucking-related regulatory endeavor happening on Capitol Hill. With an infrastructure bill back in the spotlight, how to pay for improvements to the nation’s roads and highways is once again at the forefront of everyone’s minds. While most trucking companies and advocacy groups support raising the fuel tax to support infrastructure improvements, they are against taxes targeted specifically at trucking companies.
The Fuel Tax Debate
The fuel tax came up again as a contentious topic on May 18, when the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing regarding the letter submitted to the committee from the OOIDA regarding truck-only taxes. Business-friendly Republicans such as Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) surprisingly disagreed with the OOIDA position in their letter, which read:
“We write to share our opposition to any proposal that would impose a new and unproven truck-only vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax as a means to provide greater revenue for the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). We are disappointed that this controversial and discriminatory proposal has resurfaced, as our industry has consistently supported increasing HTF revenue through equitable increases to existing user fees.”
Senator Cornyn suggested during the committee hearing that Class 7 and Class 8 CMVs should pay a flat 25 cents per mile fuel tax to pay for infrastructure improvements. His reasoning? That big, heavy-duty CMVs cause a lot more damage and wear and tear on roads and highways, so they should bear a heavier burden when it comes to improving them.
This created an unusual rift between trucking companies and advocacy groups and a Republican conference that is usually friendly to business needs. The OOIDA replied to the Senator’s statement by releasing one of their own, asking why John Cornyn hates truck drivers. They went on to state that these are the individuals that deliver essential goods and medical supplies, so why should they bear the brunt of paying for road improvements?
Oddly, if the Democrats do end up passing a big infrastructure package, they want to pay for it by hiking the corporate tax rate rather than raising user fees or fuel taxes. This has proven to be an interesting development, with Democrats not adding new taxes as a pay-for and Republicans supporting new taxes. Still, the infrastructure package is still a big unknown.
What’s Up with Infrastructure?
Since we last reported on the infrastructure discussion taking place in Washington D.C., there have certainly been new developments. The Biden administration is making a point of trying to work with Republican lawmakers to come up with a bipartisan package and it appears they may be moving towards a deal, although how to pay for it is still a matter of debate.
There are still other parts of the infrastructure bill where the two sides remain far apart, although Republicans are inching closer towards the number Democrats want. Just last week, Republican senators outlined $928 billion counterproposal to Biden’s $1.7 trillion initial ask. But, yet again, they refuse to go along with hiking the corporate tax rate, leaving how they will pay for it up for debate.
With time running out to get a deal done and a bill through Congress and to President Biden’s desk before the end of the year, administration officials are beginning to lay red lines. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg came out recently with a statement that they are looking at June 7 as a date to finalize the package and put it up for a vote.
With President Biden set to meet with the top Republican negotiator, Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, we could still see major shifts in both offers as well as how they will both be paid for. In the end, however, if Republicans and Democrats cannot come to a deal on a sweeping new infrastructure package, expect Democrats to go it alone.
Infrastructure Through Reconciliation
Should Democrats decide to go it alone on a comprehensive infrastructure package, expect them to use a little-known parliamentary trick called budget reconciliation. Using this methodology, Democrats can use a budgetary process known as reconciliation to pass legislation on a pure party-line vote. This way, they would not subject to the filibuster.
Yet Republicans are warning their Democratic counterparts against using reconciliation to pass such a big, consequential piece of legislation. In a memo recently sent to the Biden administration, they stated that using reconciliation to pass the infrastructure bill would undermine the work bipartisan senators have done to raise the level of goodwill and cooperation in the chamber.
Still, they also acknowledged that big gaps remain between what they want and expect and what the Democrats want and expect. And with time running out and June 7 rapidly approaching, no one really knows how this will all play out. Biden is under pressure from fellow Democrats to abandon all hopes of making a deal with Republicans and to simply move forward with their own bill.
As of right now, negotiations are still ongoing and many still believe a bipartisan bill can be reached. Yet, with both sides digging into their positions, whether or not a bill can be passed across party lines remains to be seen.