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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While little is currently known abut the bill, the Senate\nintroduced a similar bill in 2019. At the time the bill was directed at the\nDepartment of Transportation, directing it to develop regulations requiring\nspeed limiters on all commercial motor vehicles with a gross weight of 26,001\npounds or more. As we reported on before, the bill would set speed limits at 65\nmph. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Will It Pass?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The bill in question has been called the Cullum Owings Large\nTruck Safe Operating Speed Act, and is named after a 22 year-old Atlanta\nresident who was killed in a car-truck collision in 2002. The bill\u2019s sponsors\ninclude Lucy McBath (D-GA) in the House and Johnny Isakson (D-GA) in the\nSenate. Advocacy groups that have endorsed the bill include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n With so many advocacy groups backing the bill, it may very\nwell be that it could be passed on a bipartisan basis, even in such a closely\ndivided government. The argument these groups make is that there is no reason\nwhy trucks carrying that much freight should be traveling over 65 mph. They\nbelieve that this legislation would reduce the severity of large truck crashes.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n That the speed limiter regulation comes up again now is no\nsurprise. Many were expecting trucking regulations to come back into focus with\na new administration in the White House. And the Biden administration is not\naverse to regulations as the administration before it. Yet, it wasn\u2019t a new\nDemocratic administration that brought the issue back to the forefront. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Advocacy Groups Take a Stand<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, it was in March of this year that the American\nTrucking Associations and the Road Safe American safety group sent a letter to\nTransportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg making clear their support for regulations\nsetting speed limits. Yet not every trucking advocacy group is taking the same\nline. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)\nquickly responded, sending their own statement to the DOT outlining their\nreasons why they oppose speed limiter legislation. They point to what they\nbelieve would be an unsafe speed differential between passenger cars and the\nbig rigs they share the road with. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n And yet, the speed limiter debate is not the only\ntrucking-related regulatory endeavor happening on Capitol Hill. With an\ninfrastructure bill back in the spotlight, how to pay for improvements to the\nnation\u2019s roads and highways is once again at the forefront of everyone\u2019s minds.\nWhile most trucking companies and advocacy groups support raising the fuel tax\nto support infrastructure improvements, they are against taxes targeted\nspecifically at trucking companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Fuel Tax Debate <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The fuel tax came up again as a contentious topic on May 18,\nwhen the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing regarding the letter submitted\nto the committee from the OOIDA regarding truck-only taxes. Business-friendly\nRepublicans such as Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) surprisingly disagreed with the\nOOIDA position in their letter, which read:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “We write to share our opposition to any proposal\nthat would impose a new and unproven truck-only vehicle miles traveled (VMT)\ntax as a means to provide greater revenue for the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). We\nare disappointed that this controversial and discriminatory proposal has\nresurfaced, as our industry has consistently supported increasing HTF revenue\nthrough equitable increases to existing user fees.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Senator Cornyn suggested during the committee hearing that\nClass 7 and Class 8 CMVs should pay a flat 25 cents per mile fuel tax to pay\nfor infrastructure improvements. His reasoning? That big, heavy-duty CMVs cause\na lot more damage and wear and tear on roads and highways, so they should bear\na heavier burden when it comes to improving them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This created an unusual rift between trucking companies and advocacy groups and a Republican conference that is usually friendly to business needs. The OOIDA<\/a> replied to the Senator\u2019s 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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oddly, if the Democrats do end up passing a big infrastructure\npackage, they want to pay for it by hiking the corporate tax rate rather than\nraising user fees or fuel taxes. This has proven to be an interesting\ndevelopment, with Democrats not adding new taxes as a pay-for and Republicans\nsupporting new taxes. Still, the infrastructure package is still a big unknown.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n What\u2019s Up with Infrastructure?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Since we last reported\non the infrastructure discussion<\/a> taking place in Washington D.C., there\nhave certainly been new developments. The Biden administration is making a point\nof trying to work with Republican lawmakers to come up with a bipartisan\npackage and it appears they may be moving towards a deal, although how to pay\nfor it is still a matter of debate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n There are still other parts of the infrastructure bill where\nthe two sides remain far apart, although Republicans are inching closer towards\nthe number Democrats want. Just last week, Republican senators outlined $928\nbillion counterproposal to Biden\u2019s $1.7 trillion initial ask. But, yet again,\nthey refuse to go along with hiking the corporate tax rate, leaving how they\nwill pay for it up for debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With time running out to get a deal done and a bill through\nCongress and to President Biden\u2019s desk before the end of the year,\nadministration officials are beginning to lay red lines. Transportation\nSecretary Pete Buttigieg came out recently with a statement that they are\nlooking at June 7 as a date to finalize\nthe package<\/a> and put it up for a vote. <\/p>\n\n\n\n With President Biden set to meet with the top Republican\nnegotiator, Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, we could still see\nmajor shifts in both offers as well as how they will both be paid for. In the\nend, however, if Republicans and Democrats cannot come to a deal on a sweeping\nnew infrastructure package, expect Democrats to go it alone. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Infrastructure Through Reconciliation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Should Democrats decide to go it alone on a comprehensive\ninfrastructure package, expect them to use a little-known parliamentary trick\ncalled budget reconciliation. Using this methodology, Democrats can use a\nbudgetary process known as reconciliation to pass legislation on a pure\nparty-line vote. This way, they would not subject to the filibuster. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet Republicans are warning their Democratic counterparts\nagainst using reconciliation to pass such a big, consequential piece of\nlegislation. In a memo recently sent to the Biden administration, they stated\nthat using reconciliation to pass the infrastructure bill would undermine the\nwork bipartisan senators have done to raise the level of goodwill and\ncooperation in the chamber.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n As of right now, negotiations are still ongoing and many\nstill believe a bipartisan bill can be reached. Yet, with both sides digging\ninto their positions, whether or not a bill can be passed across party lines\nremains to be seen. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"