Aside from Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs), possibly the most hotly debated potential regulation over the last several years has been using speed limiters to regulate CMVs’ top speed. While the idea has merit, we believe it is time to stop revisiting this divisive proposed rulemaking and to move on. It is unlikely to gain traction, and continued discussions only serve to inflame frustrations.

The concept of using speed limiters to artificially retard the top speed of in CMVs dates back decades, with early discussions centered around technological solutions to enforce speed compliance. As early as 1991, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)   on CMV speed control devices, indicating an interest in speed limiter technology of the day.

In 2006, safety advocacy groups and the American Trucking Associations began pressing federal regulators to mandate speed limiters for CMVs, with proponents arguing that limiting top speeds could significantly reduce the severity of accidents involving heavy trucks.  A decade later,  FMCSA and NHTSA formally published a proposed rule that would mandate the use of speed-limiting devices for all newly manufactured CMVs with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 26,000 pounds.

However, the proposed rule left one critical aspect unresolved: the specific top speed to be set. The agencies considered three potential speed caps—60 mph, 65 mph, and 68 mph—and sought public feedback on each. This lack of consensus on the optimal speed limit sparked significant debate among stakeholders.

After the 2016 proposal, progress on the speed limiter regulation slowed significantly. Changes in federal administrations and shifting regulatory priorities contributed to the delay. Under the first Trump administration, with a largely anti-regulatory agenda, the proposal seemed all but dead in the water.

In 2022, the FMCSA reignited discussions on speed limiters by issuing a supplemental advance notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)  aimed at gathering updated data and perspectives on speed-limiting devices. The agency emphasized its commitment to balancing safety improvements with the economic realities faced by the trucking industry.

As part of these renewed efforts, FMCSA sought input on how technology had changed since the 2016 notice.  While not specifically referenced, technologies such as   Unlike static speed limiters that do not adjust the speed setting up or down, ISA technologies offer greater flexibility by allowing CMVs to adapt to varying speed limits across different roadways and routes. These systems can also provide drivers with warnings or gently reduce engine power to encourage compliance without completely overriding driver control. Proponents argue that ISA technologies strike a balance between safety and operational efficiency, making them a viable alternative to fixed speed limiters.

Given this, we think it’s time to acknowledge that this proposal won’t move forward and instead focus instead on voluntary adoption of collaborative, technology-driven solutions like Intelligent Speed Assistance, along with other strategies to combat excessive speed. We know speed is a problem and speed kills. There is

By moving aggressively and collaboratively in these areas, stakeholders can work in partnership toward safer highways without rekindling the frustration and anger that speed limiter mandates have consistently provoked.