DOT Rulemaking Frenzy May Impact Truck Safety

ANALYSIS/COMMENTARY

President Trump’s deregulatory march through federal agencies includes a flood of revamped rules by the Department of Transportation (DOT) involving trucking safety that could turn out to be too much too soon or simply wrongheaded in some cases.

The action comes after Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy unveiled a package of 18 new initiatives, pilot programs and regulatory updates on June 27 intended to make the lives of truck drivers easier. It also follows an executive order issued by President Trump’s pressing DOT to crack down on commercial drivers who are not fluent in the English language.

This follows a flood of revisions posted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) at the beginning of July that withdrew some proposed rulemakings and revised other  standards that were already being enforced.

As was the case with OSHA and some other agencies responding to President Trump’s deregulatory demands, many of the changes are simply technical in nature and bring up to date standards that were outdated and applied to technology no longer much in use or that had been superseded by newer technology.

A more significant change took place on July 23 when Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which governs truck equipment requirements, both yanked a rule mandating speed limiters for commercial trucks that had been in the works for more than 20 years and enjoyed the support of fleet operators represented by American Trucking Associations (ATA).

“In light of significant policy and safety concerns and continued data gaps that create considerable uncertainty about the estimated costs, benefits and other impacts of the proposed rule, FMCSA and NHTSA have decided to withdraw the proposal,” the notice stated.

Many truck drivers hated the speed limiter proposal and were quick to applaud the move to end it. Putting governors on truck engines that require them to go no faster than 60 mph when the other vehicles around them are going 70 or 80 would only make roads less safe, they argue.

“Studies and research have already proven what we were all taught long ago in driver’s ed classes—that traffic is safest when vehicles all travel at the same relative speed,” according to Todd Spencer, president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA). “Limiting trucks to speeds below the flow of traffic increases interactions between vehicles, which can lead to more crashes.”

Lewie Pugh, OOIDA’s executive vice president, also saluted the withdrawal. “The old ways of doing things in Washington are over. After nearly 20 years, big trucking’s proposed speed limiter mandate is dead.”

For its part, ATA argued that it had only supported mandating limiters if the rule included a maximum speed of 70 mph for trucks equipped with Automatic Emergency Braking and Adaptive Cruise Control, and 65 mph for those without these features, and that it believed any federal rule eventually adopted should be data-driven and capable of actually producing safety outcomes.

And for its part, OOIDA supports proposed legislation called the DRIVE Act that was introduced in Congress earlier this year. If enacted, that bill would prohibit FMCSA from issuing any regulation aimed at requiring vehicles of more than 26,000 pounds and in interstate commerce be equipped with a speed-limiting device.

DOT’s Rulemaking Dump

“Truckers keep America running,” declared Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy when he announced the package of truck regulatory reforms on June 23. “While the country sleeps, truckers grind through the night to help keep shelves stocked, families fed, and businesses humming. It’s a job that requires grit and dedication. But for too long Washington, DC, has made work harder for truckers. That ends today. Thanks to President Trump, we’re getting Washington out of your trucks and your business.”

Duffy’s language may be a bit florid, but he is right that there is no reason for the government to make truckers’ lives any more difficult than they need to be when it comes to regulations the department chooses to deploy.

“If these FMCSA proposals are adopted, you can expect less paperwork, fewer reportable accidents, and more streamlined compliance,” attorneys Julie E. Maurer and Aaron C. Schepler of the Husch Blackwell law firm told truckers.

Among those changes proposed is a redefinition of medical treatment to exclude diagnostic imaging such as X-rays and CT scans, which is expected to reduce the number of reportable accidents. Under the new standard, only treatment for diagnosed injuries or other medical intervention directly related to the accident will be defined as medical treatment.

Another proposal seeks to eliminate the requirement for commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders to self-report motor vehicle violations to their state. This change is due to the implementation of an exclusive electronic exchange of violations between state drivers licensing agencies, making self-reporting unnecessary.

FMCSA also wants to allow dual-status military technicians, regardless of whether they are members of either the reserves or the National Guard, to qualify for the military exception from the CDL standards. This would put them on the same footing as active-duty military personnel who are currently subject to the exemption, Maurer and Schepler explain.

In addition, the agency proposes to change the requirement for motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers to sign and return the completed roadside inspection forms to the issuing state agency. “This change addresses the issue of unnecessary paperwork, as not all states review the returned inspection reports,” the attorneys note.

The requirement for drivers to carry a physical Electronic Logging Devise (ELD) user manual in the cab also has been removed by the agency. Drivers are still responsible for knowing how to use the ELD, but in the future the manuals can be stored online, reducing clutter in the cab and the chance of citations for missing booklets.

The June 23 actions followed the release of another package of 52 separate deregulatory measures that were issued on May 29 by FMCSA and NHTSA.

DOT’s May 29 proposals include getting rid of FMCSA’s obsolete motor carrier routing regulations concerning servicing municipalities and unincorporated communities, a leftover from the era of trucking economic deregulation that culminated in the 1980 Motor Carrier Act.

Emotion Overcomes Necessity

President Trump’s executive order ramping up enforcement actions taken against commercial drivers who don’t speak English is nothing less than the triumph of emotion over necessity, drawing from and further fueling prejudicial views arising from the backlash stirred up by the wave of immigration unleashed by the Biden administration.

In his April 28 order, Trump declared it was self-evident that English language proficiency is necessary for professional drivers. “They should be able to read and understand traffic signs, communicate with traffic safety, border patrol, agricultural checkpoints, and cargo weight-limit station officers,” he said. “Drivers need to provide feedback to their employers and customers and receive related directions in English. This is common sense.”

One of his earliest Executive Orders declared that English is the national language of the U.S. In his April order he asserted, “My Administration will enforce the law to protect the safety of American truckers, drivers, passengers and others, including by upholding the safety enforcement regulations that ensure that anyone behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle is properly qualified and proficient in our national language, English.”

What Trump’s allies and critics don’t seem to realize (or don’t want to acknowledge) is that this requirement is nothing new. Truck drivers operating in interstate commerce have been required to be fluent in English for a long time. But is it true that the population of non-English speakers behind the wheel of heavy trucks and busses in interstate commerce is really that big? A glimpse at the data undermines that belief.

As someone who has covered the trucking industry since the late 1970s, over the decades I have heard drivers complain regularly about foreign drivers operating in the U.S. illegally. In fact, Mexican carriers are allowed to operate within a 20-mile border zone. American truckers sometimes darkly assert that those drivers exploit their legal access to that border zone to then venture hundreds of miles into this country, competing with legal U.S. drivers.

In addition, the fleets of many Mexican trucking companies are in possession of permits allowing them to operate within the U.S. under a practice called cabotage, which allows their trucks to make deliveries inland and pick up backhaul loads before returning to Mexico.

As so often is the case, many of the reports of illegal operations by Mexican drivers in the U.S. are largely anecdotal and don’t hold up under scrutiny and the idea that non-English-speaking legal or illegal immigrants are running rampant in the states seems to be largely the product of gossip and rumor.

FMCSA has reported that in 2024 the total number of roadside commercial driver inspections conducted by state police totaled 2,658,512, including 1,057,828 driver violations, and the total number of out-of-service (OOS) violations was 197,401.

Of those, a total of 5,684 violations and five OOS orders were issued because the driver could not read or speak English language sufficiently to respond to official inquiries. The agency also reported that 3,538 violations and only a single OOS order were issued for drivers being unable to read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in English, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.

Totaling those categories of violations yields 9,222 violations in 2024, with a grand total of six out-of-service orders. That represents only 0.87% of the total driver violations that were recorded by DOT in 2024.

The President may have been sincere in his intention, but the overheated language he used when announcing this unnecessary enforcement emphasis not only creates a wrong impression but will do little to nothing to improve safety on our roads and highways.