Dive Brief:

• The U.S. Department of Transportation updated its regulatory calendar last week, moving the proposed speed limiter rule from an "active rulemaking" to a long-term item, Overdrive reports.
• The move confirms industry suspicions that the rule's timeline would be postponed after widespread industry opposition and a Trump administration rule requiring regulators to scrap two rules for every new rule proposed.
• However, the calendar indicates another unpopular rule — sleep apnea screening — would remain on the docket, at least for truckers. Overdrive notes the regulation is still in a pre-rule stage, however, lacking a defined timeline.

Dive Insight:

The Department of Transportation and its regulatory bodies were placed in a tough position early this year when the incoming administration released its two-for-one executive order on new rules.

Meant to decrease companies' regulatory burden, the order forced agencies to reconsider whether implementing new rules were worth removing two others at any point in time. For rules including the speed limiter mandate, which were already facing widespread opposition, the DOT decided the time was not right.

However, at a recent Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration stakeholder meeting, the administration identified at least a dozen antiquated rules that could easily be targeted for scrapping. These included old rules on mandated quarterly reports from motor carriers, rules on loss and damage claims, and preservation of records, whose removal would have limited or no economic impact. In other words, the speed limiter rule could have still been implemented without much more than a bureaucratic burden.

As a result, it is more plausible the changed priorities reflect an acquiescence to industry opposition to the rule and a desire to study data more carefully before moving forward. After all, not all carriers were opposed to the rule in principle; in fact, many were simply opposed to specifics, arguing the speed limit was too low.

Regardless of the motivation, the decision is likely to be seen as a win for businesses as well as a temporary setback for highway safety advocates.