Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
This bill bars the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from issuing any rule or regulation that would require commercial motor vehicles to be equipped with speed limiting devices set to a maximum speed. The prohibition is explicit and applies notwithstanding any other provision of law.
Progressives emphasize safety and emissions concerns
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped administrative/operational statute that clearly and precisely bars the FMCSA Administrator from promulgating rules requiring speed-limiting devices on commercial motor vehicles.
This bill bars the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from issuing any rule or regulation that would require commercial motor vehicles to be equipped with speed limiting devices set to a maximum speed.
The prohibition is explicit and applies notwithstanding any other provision of law.
The text is narrowly focused on preventing a federal FMCSA mandate for speed limiters on commercial motor vehicles.
Very narrow and administratively simple but politically contested on safety and federal authority; lacks compromise features and cost analysis.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped administrative/operational statute that clearly and precisely bars the FMCSA Administrator from promulgating rules requiring speed-limiting devices on commercial motor vehicles. Its primary mechanism is explicit and legally direct.
Progressives emphasize safety and emissions concerns
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize safety and emissions concerns
Likely opposed because it removes a regulatory tool aimed at reducing crashes and controlling heavy-vehicle speeds.
Concerns will center on public safety, emissions, and worker/passenger protections.
They will note the bill prevents future rulemaking even if new evidence supports speed limiters.
Mixed view: appreciates reducing regulatory burden but worries about foreclosing a safety policy option.
Would want evidence that speed limiters are ineffective or unduly costly before permanently banning rulemaking.
Seeks compromise approaches preserving FMCSA's ability to act if rigorous studies support a mandate.
Likely supportive because it prevents federal overreach and protects industry flexibility.
Emphasizes lower regulatory costs, protection of private-sector equipment choices, and safeguarding interstate commerce from prescriptive federal rules.
Views the bill as preserving market-driven solutions and state/local discretion.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow and administratively simple but politically contested on safety and federal authority; lacks compromise features and cost analysis.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize safety and emissions concerns
Very narrow and administratively simple but politically contested on safety and federal authority; lacks compromise features and cost analy…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped administrative/operational statute that clearly and precisely bars the FMCSA Administrator from promulgating rules requiring speed-limiting devic…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.