Updates in Michigan

Michigan’s Department of Transportation (MDOT) began enforcing spring weight restrictions on all state trunkline highways starting Monday, March 3. These measures aim to protect roadways as seasonal changes make them more vulnerable to damage.

MDOT provided the following guidelines for restricted areas:

• All-Season Routes: Legal axle weights remain unchanged on these routes.

• Oversize Loads: Extended permits remain valid in restricted areas. However, single-trip permits for loads exceeding 14 feet in width, 11 axles, 150 feet in total length, or for overweight loads will not be issued on restricted routes.

• Seasonal Routes: Weight reductions are set to 25% for rigid pavements and 35% for flexible pavements, with maximum speeds capped at 35 mph for select vehicles.

Additional details, including speed restrictions and rules for propane deliveries and service vehicles, are available on the Michigan Department of Transportation website.

Wisconsin Implements Class II Restrictions

On Thursday, March 6, Wisconsin’s Department of Transportation (WisDOT) enacted Class II weight restrictions for most of its state highways. More highways have started these restrictions Monday, March 10.

WisDOT emphasized that Class II roads are particularly prone to damage during spring, as thawing frost weakens the ground. Local governments within Wisconsin may also impose additional load limits or restrictions on county, town, city, and village roads.

To assist truckers and businesses, an interactive map detailing seasonal weight restrictions throughout the state has been made available online.

Other States’ Updates

Minnesota ended its winter truck load limits as of February 28, signaling the transition to spring requirements. Meanwhile, North Dakota implemented its spring load limits on Friday, March 7.

Source: Land Line

The post Spring Truck Load Restrictions Take Effect Across the Midwest appeared first on Truck Drivers USA.

Several states have already updated their legislation in recent years to address the rise of self-driving trucks. For instance, South Dakota created a framework enabling fully autonomous trucks to operate without an onboard human operator in 2024. Similarly, Arkansas and Mississippi revised their rules in 2023 to permit truck platoons—without human drivers in trailing vehicles.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), while acknowledging the potential of autonomous technologies, has voiced concerns regarding their implications for highway safety and commercial transportation.

Delaware

Lawmakers in Delaware are tackling the issue of testing autonomous trucks without human safety operators. A similar bill introduced in the 2024 session aimed to ban autonomous trucks over 10,000 pounds from public roads. Although it passed the Senate unanimously, it failed to gain traction in the House.

Fast forward to 2025, Sen. Spiros Mantzavinos, D-Newport, has introduced SB46, an almost identical bill. This version raises the weight limit to 26,000 pounds and includes provisions that prohibit autonomous trucks from testing, transporting goods, or carrying passengers without a human driver present. It also allows testing with a driver onboard and requires the Delaware Department of Transportation to submit a report evaluating this technology by 2030, which could lead to rule adjustments.

Unsurprisingly, some in the autonomous vehicle industry argue this legislation “preemptively and prematurely” restricts progress in Delaware.

Indiana

Indiana lawmakers are also discussing autonomous trucking with measures aimed at putting clear guidelines in place. Currently, Indiana law does not specify whether a human driver is required in automated vehicle platoons.

A proposed bill, HB1057, would mandate that autonomous tractor-trailers used for goods or passenger transport must have a qualified human driver physically in the vehicle. Sponsors of the bill, such as Rep. Cindy Ledbetter, R-Newburgh, have emphasized safety concerns, stating automated trucks without drivers could lead to accidents caused by technological failures.

HB1057, along with a similar bill, HB1377, is currently under review in the House Roads and Transportation Committee.

Maryland

Maryland legislators are discussing similar restrictions on autonomous vehicles. HB439, introduced in the House, proposes banning autonomous vehicles weighing over 10,000 pounds from operating on state highways for testing, goods transport, or passenger services—unless a human driver is present. The bill also outlines a requirement for the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration to report by 2030 on the technology’s safety, impacts on jobs, and infrastructure, as well as whether the restrictions should be maintained, modified, or removed.

HB439 will be reviewed by the House Environment and Transportation Committee during a scheduled hearing on February 6, while the Senate will concurrently consider SB405.

Montana

Montana lawmakers are initiating discussions on regulating autonomous truck platoons. Currently, no rules exist for platooning in the state.

Rep. Zack Wirth, R-Wolf Creek, has introduced HB97, which seeks to authorize truck platooning on Montana highways under specific conditions. For instance, the lead vehicle “conductor” must have a commercial driver’s license (CDL) and be able to take manual control if necessary. Platooning would be limited to three trucks in a group and restricted primarily to interstate highways or within a short distance from interchanges for loading and unloading.

The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) would be tasked with creating safety-focused rules and coordinating with stakeholders, including trucking industry representatives. The department could also impose limitations on platooning during hazardous road conditions and issue special permits based on the finalized safety standards. The MDT highlights that while truck platooning offers economic and transportation benefits, it also introduces significant challenges.

Virginia

Virginia lawmakers are also considering policies for fully autonomous trucks. Legislators have proposed HB2627, a bill allowing autonomous vehicles, including those over 62,000 pounds, to operate in the state. However, the legislation mandates that a human driver with proper credentials must be physically present and capable of taking control if necessary.

The bill is currently under review by the House Transportation Committee.

Source: Land Line

The post Autonomous Truck Regulations Debated Across Five States appeared first on Truck Drivers USA.

Key Question Addressed by FMCSA

The FMCSA’s guidance specifically responds to the following question:

Does the absence, damage, or incompleteness of a rear-impact guard certification label constitute a violation of 49 CFR 393.86(a)(6) or suggest that the guard itself fails to meet the strength and energy absorption requirements mandated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) when the trailer was manufactured?

The FMCSA has made it clear—the answer is no.

According to the agency, “The regulation in 49 CFR 393.86(a)(6) requires a rear-impact guard to be permanently marked or labeled as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 223. However, NHTSA has determined that labels that wear, fade, or are removed during repairs do not indicate a current compliance issue with the requirements in FMVSS No. 223. FMCSA also recognizes that motor carriers may find it difficult to replace illegible, incomplete, or missing certification labels.”

Why This Matters

OOIDA has praised the clarification, emphasizing its significance for drivers and fleets.

“OOIDA’s collaborative efforts with CVSA and ATA have resulted in FMCSA issuing important new guidance on rear-impact guard stickers,” said Collin Long, OOIDA’s director of government affairs.

Focus Shifts to Guard Condition, Not Labels

Rather than fixating on the labels themselves, FMCSA has advised inspectors to focus on the physical condition of the rear-impact guards to ensure compliance with safety standards. Key areas of compliance include:

• General requirements [Section 393.86(a)(1)

• Guard width [Section 393.86(a)(2)]

• Guard height ([Section 393.86(a)(3))

• Rear surface of the guard [Section 393.86(a)(4)]

• Cross- sectional vertical height of the horizontal member ([Section 393.86(a)(5))

By directing attention to these aspects, FMCSA aims to ensure the integrity and safety of rear-impact guards without imposing unnecessary procedural hurdles on drivers and carriers.

Guidance for Clarity, Not Law

It’s important to note that regulatory guidance, while valuable for providing clarity, does not carry the same enforceable weight as law. Instead, it’s designed to offer insights and direction regarding existing legal or regulatory frameworks.

Source: Land Line

The post FMCSA Clarifies Rear-Impact Guard Label Requirements appeared first on Truck Drivers USA.

On Monday, November 18, FMCSA revealed that the Keep Tracking, Rollingtrans ELD – ACCURATE ONE, and Rollingtrans ELD Plus – ACCURATE PLUS had been removed from their roster of sanctioned devices.

The removal was due to these ELDs not complying with the minimum standards outlined in 49 CFR part 395, subpart B, appendix A. Specifically, this regulation mandates that “an ELD without a printer be designed so that the display may be reasonably viewed by an authorized safety official without (the official) entering the commercial motor vehicle.”

Truck operators using any of the three disapproved ELDs have until January 17, 2025, to replace these devices with compliant alternatives. Failure to do so will leave them with a “no record-of-duty status” and result in being placed out of service.

Until the deadline, carriers relying on the now-invalidated ELDs should revert to “using paper logs or logging software” to document their hours-of-service data. FMCSA also advised that, in the interim, “safety officials are encouraged not to cite drivers using these revoked ELDs” for lacking a registered device or having no record-of-duty status.

Should the ELD providers rectify all the noted shortcomings, the devices can potentially return to the approved list. However, FMCSA notes that such corrections are infrequent, urging motor carriers to proactively “take the actions listed above now to avoid compliance issues in the event that the deficiencies are not addressed by the ELD providers.”

To date, FMCSA has revoked 14 ELDs this year for similar reasons. Among these, only one device has regained approval.

Presently, there are 1,018 devices on the FMCSA’s Registered ELDs list, all self-certified by their manufacturers to meet federal requirements. While FMCSA doesn’t officially endorse these devices, the current certification process has led to challenges for carriers in maintaining compliance.

In November 2022, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association urged the FMCSA to develop a robust certification system for ELDs, stating that the existing self-certification process has proven a “major disservice to motor carriers.”

Beyond self-certification, FMCSA permits ELD manufacturers to “self-revoke” non-compliant devices. Currently, there are 242 ELDs on the revoked list; out of these, only 31 were directly removed by FMCSA, with the rest categorized as “self-revoked.”

Source: Land Line

The post Three ELDs Removed from FMCSA’s Approved List appeared first on Truck Drivers USA.