- Targeted stakeholdersReduces compliance and capital costs for carriers who would otherwise install speed limiters.
- Targeted stakeholdersPreserves operational flexibility for fleet managers and drivers regarding vehicle cruising speeds.
- Targeted stakeholdersAvoids administrative burden and rulemaking costs for FMCSA and regulated entities.
DRIVE Act
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
This bill (DRIVE Act) would prohibit the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) from issuing any rule that requires vehicles with a gross vehicle weight over 26,000 pounds operating in interstate commerce to be fitted with a speed-limiting device set to a maximum speed.
It removes FMCSA authority to mandate such speed limiters but does not itself mandate any device settings or new requirements.
Modest chance to pass a receptive House; significant Senate hurdles and likely stakeholder pushback make final enactment uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive policy measure that plainly prohibits the FMCSA Administrator from issuing rules requiring speed limiting devices on interstate vehicles over 26,000 pounds. The operative prohibition is clear but minimal.
Progressives stress safety and emissions benefits of speed limiters
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
- Targeted stakeholdersCould increase highway crash risk and related fatalities by allowing higher maximum vehicle speeds.
- Targeted stakeholdersMay raise fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions if average heavy vehicle speeds increase.
- Federal agenciesRemoves a federal standard-making tool, limiting national harmonization of heavy-vehicle safety measures.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Progressives stress safety and emissions benefits of speed limiters
Likely opposed.
Seen as a rollback of a potential safety regulation that could reduce crash severity and fatalities involving large trucks.
Viewed as limiting the agency's ability to adopt evidence-based safety measures.
Mixed view.
Balances safety benefits of speed limiters against costs and feasibility for diverse fleets.
Prefers more evidence, phased approaches, and targeted exemptions rather than a permanent broad prohibition.
Likely strongly supportive.
Frames the bill as limiting federal overreach, protecting trucking industry costs, and preserving operational flexibility for drivers and carriers.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest chance to pass a receptive House; significant Senate hurdles and likely stakeholder pushback make final enactment uncertain.
- No CBO/score or cost estimate included
- Extent of industry support or opposition is not specified
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Progressives stress safety and emissions benefits of speed limiters
Modest chance to pass a receptive House; significant Senate hurdles and likely stakeholder pushback make final enactment uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive policy measure that plainly prohibits the FMCSA Administrator from issuing rules requiring speed limiting devices on interstate vehicles over…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.